OF  THE 

U  N  I  VERS  I T  Y 
Of  ILLINOIS 

From  the  library  of 
Professor  William  A.  Foster 
Presented  by  his  family 

1941 

261.7 

Scb<3s 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 


The  State,  The  Church, 
And  The  School. 


%  frtenBEp  Jmif :  wherein  one  Cae0ar  Bp  l$ame,  an£> 
one,  t§e  Banker  of  ,$ui>a§— ant)  ro^ose  ‘Barney 
are  00  caffei)  in  Scripture — prap  for  a  decree 
of  BiPorce ;  ani>,  t§e  draper  of  t§e  Petitioner 
granted,  t§e  (£>ue0tion  en0ue0:  €0  ico§om  0§aff 
Be  ^iPen  t§e  <£§i£i>  ? 


BY 

C.  H.  L.  SCHUETTE,  A.  M. 


COLUMBUS,  OHIO: 

THE  LUTHERAN  BOOK  CONCERN. 

1883. 


8>s 


1 1  if)  i  y 
tIUlflUdlll 

PREFACE.. 


3 


PREFACE. 


* •  1 

<D  ' 


02 

O 


V  / 


O 


t 


co 


1 


“  When  your  Lordships  look  at  the  papers 
transmitted  from  America, — when  you  consider 
their  decency,  firmness,  and  wisdom, — you  cannot 
but  respect  their  cause  and  wish  to  make  it  your 
own.  For  myself,  I  must  declare  and  avow  that 
in  all  my  reading  and  observation, — and  it  has 
been  my  favorite  study, — I  have  read  Thucydides , 
and  have  studied  and  admired  the  master  States  of 
the  world, — that  for  solidity  of  reasoning,  force  of 
sagacity,  and  wisdom  of  conclusion,  under  such  a 
complication  of  difficult  circumstances,  no  nation 
or  body  of  men  can  stand  in  preference  to  the 
General  Congress  in  Philadelphia.  I  trust  it  is  ob¬ 
vious  to  your  Lordships  that  all  attempts  to  impose 

>r  - 

servitude  upon  such  men,  to  establish  despotism 
over  such  a  mighty  continental  nation,  must  be 
vain,  must  be  fatal!” 

Lord  Chatham,  in  the  British  Parliament . 

The  men  here  so  highly  and  heartily  com¬ 
mended  for  their  great  wisdom  and  moral  worth, 
and  whose  state-papers  elicited  such  unfeigned  ad¬ 
miration  among  the  enemies  of  their  cause,  were 
the  representative  and  leading  minds  of  our  Rev- 

I  S  6  I  906 


4 


PREFACE. 


olutionary  Era — the  men  who,  in  peril  of  all  that 
is  most  dear  to  the  human  heart,  laid  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  our  Government.  That  they  fought  in 
defense  of  their  homes,  that  they  founded  a  new 
State,  that  they  are  the  fathers  of  a  great  nation — 
these  things  constitute  not  their  chief  glory.  Their 
greater,  their  distinguishing,  glory  is  this,  that  they 
so  fully  recognized  and  heroically  stood  up  for  the 
best  rights  of  humanity,  that  they  did  their  work 
so  wisely  and  well,  that  they  are  the  fathers  of  a 
people  truly  free,  and  that  in  their  every  achieve¬ 
ment  they  discerned  and  acknowledged  the  guid¬ 
ance  and  support  of  the  most  merciful  God. 

Did  the  profound  wisdom  and  the  nobility  of 
character  manifest  from  the  documents  of  State, 
which  they  submitted  to  the  chiefs  of  the  mother 
country,  wrest  from  these  such  utterances  of  un¬ 
equaled  praise :  greater,  by  far,  is  the  honor  due 
them  for  the  conception  and  promulgation  of  that 
grand  Instrument  of  State  upon  which — from  May 
to  September,  A.  D.  1787  *  and  under  the  presi¬ 
dency  of  George  Washington — they  concentrated  all 
their  efforts  and  to  which  they  devoted,  prayer¬ 
fully  devoted,  their  best  powers  of  mind  and  soul — 
The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  of  America . 

Little  good  had  these  men  and  their  compan¬ 
ions  received  at  the  hands  of  kings,  poor  protection 
had  they  enjoyed  under  the  crowns  of  their  trans- 

*  If  any  event  in  the  history  of  a  people  is  worthy  of  a 
joyous  commemoration,  the  completion  of  this  work  must 
be  accounted  as  such ;  and  it  is  hoped  that  the  17th  day  of 
September ,  A.  D.  1887,  will  be  observed  as  a  day  of  national 
thanksgiving  and  as  a  general  jubilee. 


PREFACE. 


5 


Atlantic  lords :  and  for  kings  and  crowns,  accord¬ 
ingly,  they  found  room  neither  in  the  new  land  nor 
in  the  law  of  its  government,  except  forever  to  pro¬ 
scribe  them !  In  a  country  where  every  man  is 
esteemed  the  equal  of  his  fellow  in  affairs  of  right, 
there  can  simply  be  no  room  for  kings.  And  as  to 
crowns — what  other  and  more  precious  jewel  can 
any  people  covet  than  that  which  we  possess  in  the 
great  charter  of  our  civil  and  religious  Liberties  ? 
For  both,  our  king  and  our  crown,  we  point  to  our 
National  Constitution  ;  and  this — next  to  our  God 
and  His  Word,  to  whom  for  its  formation,  success¬ 
ful  operation,  and  happy  preservation,  we  are  so 
largely  indebted — we  prize  as  our  dearest  national 
treasure. 

Rather  ought  we  to  have  said:  should  we  prize 
as  our  dearest  treasure;  for,  as  in  other  things  so  in 
this,  we  do  not  what  we  should  do.  Our  excellent 
Constitution  abounds  in  good  things.  Of  truths 
and  principles,  of  rules  and  ordinances — in  part 
revealed  from  heaven,  in  part  suggested  by  the  his¬ 
tory  of  the  world,  all  of  great  moment  to  our  tem¬ 
poral  and  eternal  interests — one  closely  presses  the 
other.  The  ripe  product  of  close  study,  and  of 
loving  hearts,  its  every  word  is  worthy  of  careful 
consideration.  There  is  much  to  admire ;  the 
whole  document  has  approved  itself  as  an  instru¬ 
ment  only  for  good ;  in  every  way  it  demands  of 
us  an  appreciative  and  grateful  heart. 

The  one  grand  principle  of  our  Constitution 
which,  more  than  any  other  and  to  the  exclusion 
almost  of  all  others,  is  to  engage  us  in  the  following 
pages,  is  the  principle  of  the  rights  of  conscience 


6 


PREFACE. 


and  the  consequent  law  forbidding  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  any  national  religion.  This  is  a  gem 
more  brilliant  than  the  Koh-i-noor  of  a  queen,  it  is 
the  gift  of  One  greater  than  the  fabled  Krischnu : 
and  it  is  ours  !  Without  the  guarantee  of  religious 
liberty  every  system  of  civil  government  is  utterly 
worthless.  But,  more  than  any  other  on  earth,  we 
are  a  free  people — we  are  free  in  the  all-important 
matter  of  religion.  Of  this  fact  every  one  of  us 
should  have  an  intelligent  and  living  consciousness, 
that  we  may  preserve  what  is  ours.  As  citizens, 
nothing  becomes  us  so  well  as  a  careful  and  rever¬ 
ent  study  of  the  charter  of  these  our  holy  rights. 
Than  to  abuse  these,  for  us  there  can  be  no  greater 
wrong;  while  their  right  and  grateful  enjoyment 
is  sure  to  make  us  a  happy  and  prosperous  people. 

When,  in  the  book  here  introduced  to  the 
Reader,  we  essay  a  treatment  of  such  comprehen¬ 
sive  themes  as  are  the  State,  the  Church,  and  the 
School,  it  is  not  our  intention  to  explore  to  any 
great  extent  the  fields  respectively  of  civil  juris¬ 
prudence,  of  theology,  and  of  education.  That  were 
an  undertaking  which  to  execute  surpasses  our 
ability.  We  propose  to  ascertain,  as  best  we  can, 
the  place  in  the  social  system  belonging  by  right  to 
each  of  our  great  subjects.  With  this  object  con¬ 
stantly  before  us,  we  shall  first  give  the  necessary 
description  of  the  State,  the  Church  and  the  School, 
and  then  discuss  the  relation  which  they  ought  to 
sustain  with  respect  to  each  other.  Whatever  may 
here  and  there  appear  to  be  irrelevant  will  on  that 
account,  we  trust,  not  be  found  wholly  unwelcome 
and  unprofitable  reading. 


PREFACE. 


7 


The  point  of  view  assumed  throughout  the  dis¬ 
cussion  is  that  of  a  Christian  citizen.  No  tenet  of 
any  Christian  denomination  will  be  found  assailed 
except  where,  in  letter  or  in  spirit,  it  is  believed  to 
be  in  conflict  with  the  doctrine  of  equal  rights, 
especially  as  touching  the  affairs  of  God  and  the 
human  soul.  Wherever  we  found  this  to  be  the 
case — wherever  we  have  discovered  anything  antag¬ 
onistic  to  the  Magna  Charta  of  our  Liberties — we 
have  spared  none ;  we  have  frankly  characterized 
the  party  and  fearlessly  exposed  the  ruinous  tend¬ 
ency  of  its  precepts. 

In  our  own  land  we  have  no  union  of  Church 
and  State ;  but  from  this  it  does  not  follow  that  the 
question  no  longer  concerns  us.  A  people  govern¬ 
ing  itself  should  thoroughly  understand  the  philos¬ 
ophy  of  its  own  laws,  especially  of  the  laws  em¬ 
bodied  in  its  Constitution.  Besides,  the  line  of 
demarcation  between  the  Church  and  the  State  is 
not  so  definite  and  distinct  as  many  may  suppose. 
Conflicts  between  these  bodies  are  becoming  quite 
numerous  in  our  country ;  and  the  way  their  bat¬ 
tles  are  fought  and  their  difficulties  are  adjusted, 
indicates  anything  but  a  thorough  acquaintance 
with  the  principles  involved.  Sooner  or  later,  too, 
such  questions  as  e.  g.  the  recognition  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  in  the  Constitution,  the  introduction  of 
religion  into  the  Common  Schools,  etc.,  will  de¬ 
mand  a  final  solution  at  the  hands  of  American 
citizens.  To  be  properly  prepared  to  meet  such 
issues  as  these,  he  must  fully  understand  the  ra¬ 
tionale  of  our  liberties;  he  must  know  the  reasons 
why  our  Constitution  forbids  the  establishment  by 


8 


PREFACE. 


law  of  any  religion  and  understand  the  full  import 
of  this  law. 

To  aid  in  the  solution  of  such  questions  as  are 
here  no  more  than  indicated,  the  book  now  pre¬ 
sented  to  the  Reader  was  written.  In  its  prepara¬ 
tion  we  have  walked  through  pleasant  fields  and 
by  the  hands  of  worthy  men — with  these  we  have 
walked  along  often  supported,  sometimes  support¬ 
ing,  always  instructed  and  delighted.  No  less  than 
did  we,  may  the  Reader  find  their  company  good 
and  pleasant. 

Capital  University,  Columbus,  Ohio,  June,  1883. 


•i 


10 


CONTENTS. 


CONTENTS. 


I.  THE  STATE. 

Page. 


Preface .  3-8 

§  1.  Common  Rights  and  Duties  and  their  free 
Exercise ,  as  leading  to  the  Establishment 
of  the  State .  17-38 

National  Favors  and  national 
Gratitude — Common  Rights — Personal  and 


Civil  Liberty — Perplexities — Formation  of 
a  Government — State-Origin. 

§  2.  The  State ,  its  Nature  and  Office  defined .  39-60 

Definitions  —  State-Sovereignty 
— Whence  it  is — In  whom  does  it  reside — 
Necessity  of  its  Assertion — Whojnay  exer¬ 
cise  it — In  what  Form. 

§3.  A  view  of  the  Chief  Arms  of  State .  61-72 

Object  of  State-Laws  and  Law¬ 
making — Different  kinds  of  Laws — The 
Virtue  and  Force  of  Laws. 

§  4.  The  Sphere  of  State-Jurisdiction .  73-87 

The  Objects  coming  within  its 
Sphere — Jurisdiction  not  Possession — Dif¬ 
ficulties — Education — Morals  and  Religion 
— Religious  Freedom  a  Natural  Right — 
Religious  Freedom  not  Toleration — State 
supreme — Not  independent — Moral  Sup¬ 
port. 

II.  THE  CHURCH. 

§  5.  Religion  and  Religious  Rights  and  Du¬ 
ties  as  leading  to  the  Establishment  of  the 
Church .  88-105 


CONTENTS. 


11 


Religion  universal  —  Folly  of 
Atheism — Heathenism — Power  of  Religion 
— Revealed  Religion — The  Bible — Chris¬ 
tianity— Power  of  Christianity — Founded 
on  Facts — The  only  Religion — In  what 
sense  fixed,  in  what  sense  progressive — 
Exclusive — Tendency  of  the  age  to  Skep¬ 
ticism — The  Universal  character  of  Chris¬ 
tianity —  Influence  of  Christianity — Its 
Conflicts  and  Triumphs — Its  Needs. 

§  6.  The  Church  defined; — its  real  Essence; 
and  the  outward  Forms  in  which  it  mani¬ 
fests  itself . . . . 

The  Church  in  its  primary  Sense 
— a  Body,  not  an  Institution — more  than 
a  Society — Faith,  the  Bond  of  Union — In¬ 
visible. — The  Church  in  its  derivative 
Sense — a  Christian  Congregation — Differ¬ 
ence  between  the  Church  and  Churches — 
Its  Tangibility — Political  View  of  the 
Church — Why  and  How  noticed  by  the 
State — Incorporations — Importance  of — . 

§7.  A  View  of  the  Church  with  reference  to 
its  Objects  and  its  Means  and  Mode  of 
Operation . 

The  Church  a  Duality — True 
Visible  Church — Its  Object — Means — Mo¬ 
dus  Operandi — Its  social  Functions — Or¬ 
ganization — Legislation — Power  of  Legis¬ 
lation,  where  resident — Vestries  and  Sy¬ 
nods. 

§  8.  The  Boundaries  of  Churchly  Activity 
and  the  Limits  of  its  Powers . 

Advantage  of  Order — Power  and 
Authority — Resort  to  Force — The  Policy  of 
Non-interference — Minding  One’s  Business 
— Resume — Church-Supremacy. 


Page. 


106-117 


118-128 


129-139 


12 


CONTENTS. 


III.  THE  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION 
OF  THE  STATE  AND  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

Page. 

Preliminary .  140-141 

§  9.  The  State  and  the  Church  are  two  dis¬ 
tinct  but  not  antagonistic  Bodies .  142-161 

Analogous  Features  of  the  State 
and  the  Church — Difference  of — Their  Com- ' 
mixture  forbidden — Comparative  Import¬ 
ance  of — The  Question  of  Subordination — 
Hierarchic  Notions  of  Romanism — Protes¬ 
tant  Distinction  between  State  and  Church 
— Practical  Inferences — No  Conflict  pos¬ 
sible — Conflict  possible  between  them  only 
when  false — Christianity  adverse  to  Slavery 
— A  safe  Principle  of  State  and  Church- 
Legislation —  The  Rights  of  Conscience — 

Correct  view  of  Politics  and  of  Religion,  in 
the  United  States — Hopes  of  Romanism — 

A  Species  of  Communism. 

§  10.  The  State  and  the  Church  are  indepen¬ 
dently  existent  but  mutually  auxiliary 
Bodies .  162-183 

The  Policy  of  utter  Indiffer¬ 
ence  repudiated — Folly  of  Enmity  to  the 
Church — Common  Interests — The  State  has 
need  of  the  Church:  Worth  of  Religion  to 
the  State — The  social  merits  of  Christian¬ 
ity — Testimony — The  Church  has  need  of 
the  State:  The  Church  dependent  on  God 
alone — The  State  an  Instrument  of  Good 
to  the  Church  —  Need  of  Protection  — 
against  Foes  without — and  within — State 
Arbitration  in  Church-Affairs — Explained. 


CONTENTS. 


13 


IV.  THE  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION 
OF  THE  STATE  AND  THE  CHURCH. 

Page. 

Preliminary .  184-187 

§11.  Arguments  for  their  Union — refuted...  188-209 

-  1.  The  object  of  the  State,  the 
Public  Good — Its  Office  paternal.  2.  Sal¬ 
vation  of  men  the  object  of  all  Orders.  3. 

The  Government’s  Need  of  Sanctification 
— Recognition  of  God  in  the  American 
Constitution  —  National  Reform  Party. 

4.  Establishments  necessary  to  secure 
Church  -  Government.  5.  Necessary  to 
secure  the  best  Religion  to  the  Body 
politic.  6.  Material  Advantages  of — Sup¬ 
posed  Evils.  7.  Necessary  to  establish 
Uniformity. 

§  12.  Arguments  against  their  Union — con¬ 
firmed .  210-248 

1.  Uselessness.  2.  Confusion 
resulting  from — .  3.  Involves  an  Infrac¬ 

tion  of  civil  and  religious  Liberty.  4.  In¬ 
evitable  Wrongs.  5.  Produces  revolution¬ 
ary  Elements  in  State  and  Church.  6. 

The  adverse  Testimony  of  History. 

V.  THE  RELATION  OF  THE  STATE  AND 
THE  CHURCH  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

§  13.  Official  Utterances  of  the  Constitutions..  249-267 

1.  Of  the  Federal  Constitution. 

2.  Of  the  State  Constitutions  in  Alpha¬ 
betical  Order.  3.  Fundamental  Constitu¬ 
tion  of  Carolina,  A.  D.  1669.  4.  Frame  of 

Government  of  Pennsylvania,  A.  D.  1682. 

5.  Analysis  of  the  Constitutions  of  the 
American  Union.  6.  XIV.  Amendment. 

7.  Honor  of  Virginia. 


14 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 

§  14.  Annotations ,  especially  on  the  National 
Constitution ,  respecting  the  Relation  of  the 
State  and  the  Church .  268-280 

Our  Nation  the  first  to  declare 
full  religious  Liberty — Our  Constitution 
not  indifferent  nor  hostile  to  Religion — 

Opinion  of  Judge  Story — Of  Judge  Bay¬ 
ard — Analysis  —  The  Result,  a  Matter  of 
Gratitude. 

§  15.  Inconsistencies  of  Practices  with  Prin¬ 
ciples  -  apparent  and  otherwise .  281-301 

Sunday  —  Blasphemy  —  Chap¬ 
laincies. 

§16.  General  Review  of  Principles  and  Prac¬ 
tices ,  and  the  Problem  of  Harmonizing 
them  .  302-314 

Our  Government  non-religious 
—  “Broad  Christianity”  denominational 
and  concretely  sectarian — The  non-relig¬ 
ious  the  best  civil  Polity — Doubts  difficult 
to  overcome — Uncle  Sam  to  mind  his  own 
Business — Stand  by  the  Rule,  the  Excep¬ 
tions  will  take  care  of  themselves — Chap¬ 
laincies  as  an  Exception — Their  Justifica¬ 
tion —  A  Limit  to  the  Rights  of  “Con¬ 
science  and  Religion” — The  grateful  Hopes 
of  Washington — Webster’s  Eulogy. 

VI.  THE  SCHOOL. 

§  17.  Parental  Duties  as  Leading  to  the 

Establishment  of  the  School  .  315 — 326 

The  Christian  Home  —  Our 
Text — The  Estate  of  Marriage — Children, 
a  Gift  of  Supreme  Love — The  Worth  of 
Children  —  The  Bestowal  of  favors  Im¬ 
poses  Duties  —  The  Importance  of  the 
Parent’s  and  Educator’s  Office — Children 
Belong  to  the  Parents — The  Family  is 


CONTENTS. 


15 


State  and  Church  combined — The  domes¬ 
tic  Ministry — The  Father  or  the  Mother? 
—  Hindrances  to  domestic  Education  — 
Necessity  of  Schools. 

§18.  The  School ,  What  it  is  and  what  it 
should  be . . 

The  School  not  a  house  of  Cor¬ 
rection — Not  a  Nursery — Education  de¬ 
fined  —  Education  to  Comprehend  the 
Whole  Man  —  Object  of  the  School  — 
Knowledge  is  Power — Our  Schools  and 
Teachers  as  they  are — Difficulties — The 
only  Help — The  Bible  as  a  School-book — 
Educational  Worth  of  Christianity — Edu¬ 
cation,  a  divine  Right  to. 

§  19.  The  Relation  of  the  School  to  the  State 
and  the  Church . 

The  Right  to  demand  and  the 
Duty  to  do  are  things  different — Compul¬ 
sory  Education  —  Separation  of  secular 
and  religious  Education  —  Obj  ections — 
The  Claims  of  the  religious  Sentiment — 
Religious  Pretense  not  Satisfactory — Posi¬ 
tive  Objections  to  secular  Schools — Never 
inculcate  Doubts — The  Good  of  the  Secu¬ 
lar  System — The  School  to  be  given  to 
the  Church. 

§  20.  The  Problem  brought  Home ,  or,  the 
American  School . 

The  Laws  —  Defects — A  Rem¬ 
edy  proposed  not  practicable — In  what 
sense  are  we  a  Christian  People  —  The 
Problem  Stated — Deism  characterized  — 
Its  arrogant  Claims  —  The  Obstacle  of 
Equal  Rights  —  The  Church  —  The  Plea 
of  Conscience  —  A  Common  and  Chris¬ 
tian  School  an  Impossibility — Parochial 
Schools  —  Not  inimical  to  Protection — 
Propositions. 


Page. 


337—341 


342—357 


358—381 


- 


. 


■  '  flP 


I.  THE  STATE. 


1.  COMMON  RIGHTS  AND  DUTIES,  AND  THEIR 
FREE  EXERCISE,  AS  LEADING  TO  THE  ESTAB¬ 
LISHMENT  OF  THE  STATE. 


To  live  in  our  own  dear  land,  as  “in  the  land 
of  the  free  and  the  home  of  the  brave,”  is  indeed 
an  inestimable  good.  Whatever  be  the  race,  con¬ 
dition  or  color  of  his  parent,  here  the  new-born 
man  greets  with  the  light  of  day  a  life  of  liberty. 
Among  us  the  oppressed  and  impoverished  of  other 
and  less  favored  lands  may  find  relief  from  unrea¬ 
sonable  impositions  and  insufferable  wrongs;  a  ref¬ 
uge  here  awaits  them  which  promises  peace  if  not 
plenty.  We  are  a  people  enriched  with  many 
things  great  and  good:  but  the  greatest  and  best 
among  them  all  is  the  freedom  of  their  pursuit  and 
enjoyment.  And  would  to  God  that  the  apprecia¬ 
tion  and  gratitude  of  both,  the  free-born  and  the 
liberated,  were  more  commensurate  to  the  blessings 
on  them  bestowed. 

When  in  thralldom,  Rienzi  could  bethink  him¬ 
self  of  days  “  when  to  be  a  Roman  was  greater  than 
a  king;”  then  could  he  ardently  long,  then  did  he 
zealously  labor,  for  the  restoration  of  those  happy 
days.  But  no  sooner  was  Rienzi  free  and  himself 


18 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


proclaimed  “ The  Tribune  of  Liberty ,  Peace  and  Justice” 
of  proud  Rome,  than  he  too  became  proud  and  im¬ 
perious  ;  and  he  began  to  encroach  upon  those 
sacred  rights  he  himself  had  been  foremost  to  re¬ 
store.  And  then? — Rienzi  was  deprived  of  his  high 
trust ;  degraded,  he  became  a  fugitive  from  the 
citv,  and  when  at  last  he  returned  it  was  to  die  at 
the  hands  of  the  same  people  who  before  had  done 
him  honor.  Such  are  the  ways  of  man!  and 
human  nature  is  ever  and  everywhere  the  same. 
First  servitude  and  want;  then  liberty,  wealth, 
power,  and  honor;  and  then,  ingratitude,  degrada¬ 
tion,  and  death.  These  are  the  few  words  that 
suffice  to  tell  the  history  of  the  rise  and  fall  of 
many  a  man,  ay!  and  of  many  a  nation,  too.  “An 
advance,  a  growth,  a  development,  an  ascendency, 
and  then  a  demoralization,  a  subversion,  and  a 
decay.”  Such  are  the  facts  as  furnished  by  the 
history  of  nations  that  have  been.  Notwithstand¬ 
ing  the  Evolution  theory  of  Herbert  Spencer  and 
all  the  nice  speculations  of  his  and  similar  schools 
to  the  contrary,  two  words  tell  the  story  of  nations: 
“ Rise  and  Fall!” 

That  our  own  America  has  been  greatly  favored 
and  highly  exalted  among  the  nations  of  the  earth 
is  a  matter  of  most  grateful  joy;  that  she  may  not 
fall,  as  others  have  fallen,  is  a  matter  of  hope  most 
fond  and  of  prayer  most  devout.  With  the  free¬ 
dom  we  enjoy  there  are  bound  up  interests  which 
reach  deeper  than  the  body,  higher  than  the  earth, 
and  farther  than  time.  Not  only  the  body  and  its 
well-being  are  here  concerned  :  it  affects  our  spirit¬ 
ual  self  and  all  that  is  most  sacred  and  dear  to  us. 


1. 


COMMON  RIGHTS  AND  DUTIES. 


19 


In  view  of  this  the  cry  of  “Liberty  or  Death !” 
which  otherwise  may  seem  an  emotional  extrava¬ 
gance,  at  once  becomes  expressive  of  profound  wis¬ 
dom,  and  of  a  sense  of  high  duty  as  well.  But  the 
fear  to  lose  and  the  hope  to  preserve  a  good  that  is 
our  own  are  only  then  possible  when  we  appreciate 
that  good.  Only  when  the  heritage  of  liberty  is 
often  present  in  our  thoughts  and  so  becomes  a 
thing  familiar  and  precious  to  our  hearts,  will  we 
put  forth  our  best  endeavors  to  hold  it  fast  and 
properly  to  use  it.  Among  us  there  are  many, 
very  many,  who  never  give  a  serious  thought  to 
this  blessing  which  has  come  upon  them.  They 
breathe  the  air  of  freedom  as  they  do  the  air  of 
earth,  without  any  consideration,  care  and  grati¬ 
tude  whatever;  and  so  little  do  some  of  them  know 
•  of  its  true  nature  that  they  often  pronounce  it  foul 
when  in  truth  it  is  most  pure  and  wholesome. 
Judging  from  the  indifference  so  often  and  so  gen¬ 
erally  manifested  with  reference  to  the  most  im¬ 
portant  questions  of  common  rights  and  duties, 
even  when  these  are  flagantry  disregarded  and 
trampled  on  with  impunity,  it  is  difficult  to  be¬ 
lieve  that  the  love  of  liberty  is  as  deeply  rooted  in 
the  hearts  of  our  people  as  some  would  have  us 
think.  Love  is  anxious,  wakeful,  circumspect,  jeal¬ 
ous,  and  quickly  roused  to  action  when  the  thing 
beloved  is  in  jeopardy.  Besides,  a  pure  and  strong 
love  of  right  and  duty  and  their  free  exercise  de¬ 
mands  beforehand  a  clear  and  correct  sense  of 
these  things;  and  to  implant  this  comparatively 
little  is  done  and  still  less  is  effected. 

Should  any  one  think  that  we  are  looking 


20 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


about  us  and  judging  things  through  the  glasses 
of  a  pessimist,  we  are  comforted  by  the  fact  that  in 
our  “  misery  ”  we  are  not  without  good  company. 
“In  the  stress  of  small  politics  it  is  to  be  feared 
that  Americans  are  giving  far  less  attention  than 
they  should  to  the  great  formative  epochs  of  liberty 
in  modern  history;  and  that  while  we  are  in  the 
quiet,  unquestioned,  and  unexampled  enjoyment 
of  the  common  blessings  of  liberty,  we  are  in¬ 
finitely  more  ignorant  than  were  the  men  of  the 
past,  who  pioneered  the  way,  of  the  principles 
that  lie  at  the  root  of  the  matter,  and  which  crys- 
talized  slowly  through  centuries  of  arduous  struggle 
into  the  institutions  we  now  so  unconcernedly  in¬ 
herit.”*  “There  are,  however,  three  tendencies 
abroad  which  aim  at  the  disturbance  of  this  ad¬ 
justment” — i.  e.  the  separate  condition  of  Church 
and  State — “and  which,  in  the  event  of  the  com¬ 
plete  success  of  any  one  of  them,  must  destroy  it 
altogether  ....  The  first  of  these  may  be  described 
as  the  surviving  spirit  of  Puritanism  ....  The 
second  movement  hostile  to  civil  and  religious  lib¬ 
erty  may  be  even  more  briefly  referred  to,  for  the 
reason  that  it  is  organized,  tangible,  historic,  and  is 
therefore  better  known.  It  may  be  designated  as 
Ultramontanism  or  Vaticanism  in  politics  and  re¬ 
ligion  ....  Finally,  there  is  a  reactionary  move¬ 
ment,  provoked  in  great  degree  by  the  tendencies 
already  noticed,  which,  for  the  want  of  a  better 
term,  may  be  called  secularism  ....  It  is  for  the 
most  part  a  quiet,  unavowed  purpose  on  the  part 
of  politicians,  both  active  and  theoretical,  who  are 


*  Harper’s  Magazine,  December,  1881,  p.  148. 


§1. 


COMMON  RIGHTS  AND  DUTIES. 


21 


either  irreligious,  or  indifferent  to  all  religion,  to 
discredit  the  Christian  Church,  to  limit,  by  un¬ 
friendly  legislation,  its  activities  and  agencies,  and 
finally  dismiss  it  with  contempt,  or  reduce  it  to 
entire  subjection  to  the  civil  power  .  .  .  .”  (Chris¬ 
tianity  and  Civil  Soc.  by  Bishop  Harris,*  p.  110 
etc.)  Another,  and  one  who  has  had  ample  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  know  whereof  he  affirms,  says:  “The 
course  display  of  money,  the  crude  boasting  of 
material  greatness,  the  swaggering  assertion  of 
an  independence  which  is  but  another  name  for 
ignorance,  have  done  much  to  excite  in  such  cir¬ 
cles” — the  best  informed  of  Europe — “a  distate  for - 
American  character,  and  a  disrelish  for  American 
•  ideas.”  (Church  and  State  by  J.  P.  Thompson, 
Intr.)  What  is  here  lamented  as  done  abroad 
and  to  our  discredit,  is  also  done  at  home;  and, 
than  there,  is  here  no  less  injurious  and  deplor¬ 
able.  Less  boasting  and  more  of  an  intelligent 
and  grateful  appreciation  of  our  glorious  liberties, 
fewer  works  of  impossible  adventure  and  fiction 
but  more  on  our  civil  rights  and  obligations,  are 
things  whereof  we  greatly  stand  in  need.  And 
why  not  have  them?  Certainly,  American  citizen¬ 
ship,  and  things  thereon  hanging,  is  a  theme  in 
itself  as  grand  and  interesting  as  its  discussion  is 
important  and  ever  opportune. 

Our  people  should  be  brought  to  the  convic¬ 
tion  that  the  liberty  they  enjoy  is  a  thing  cheap  as 
they  find  it  not  because  it  were  worthless  but  be- 


*  We  regret  the  late  appearance  of  these  excellent  lec¬ 
tures.  We  can  only  draw  from  them  while  our  manuscript 
passes  into  the  hands  of  the  printer. 


22 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


cause  it  is  too  valuable  to  admit  of  any  price;  that 
no  amount  of  gold  and  silver,  that  nothing  within 
the  reach  of  man,  can  be  accounted  its  equivalent; 
that  it  is  a  gift  of  heaven  and  as  precious  as  is  life 
itself;  but  at  the  same  time  a  gift  than  which 
there  are  few  others  so  easily  impaired  or  wholly 
lost.  In  the  mind  of  its  benign  Giver  it  is  in¬ 
tended  for  all,  and  for  all  men  upon  equal  terms 
and  under  like  conditions.  If  one  is  “  born  a 
slave”  and  another  is  “born  a  king,”  it  is  so  by  no 
decree  of  God  but  by  the  doubtful  ordering  of  men. 
That  u  all  men  are  born  free  and  equal f  though  it  is 
not  generally  accepted  as  such,  is,  nevertheless,  a 
sound  doctrine.  Only  it  must  be  properly  under¬ 
stood.  When  the  child  is  made  subject  to  his  par¬ 
ent  he  is  thereby  not  necessarily  abridged  in  his 
liberty.  Filial  liberty,  for  .example,  or  the  freedom 
of  an  undeveloped  man,  and  parental  authority  are 
in  no  way  incompatible  when  both  are  rightly  de¬ 
fined;  nay,  the  latter  is  the  promoter,  the  bound, 
the  safe-guard  of  the  former.  When  a  child  does 
what  does  not  become  a  child  it  exhibits  an  un¬ 
due  want  of  restraint,  but  it  does  then  not  exer¬ 
cise  its  freedom.  When  a  free  man  waives  the 
exercise  of  his  right  to  benefit  another,  or  when  for 
a  time  he  voluntarily  foregoes  the  use  of  his  rights 
to  serve  another,  or  again,  when  he  is  restrained  in 
his  freeness  from  injuring  others,  he  is  in  each  or 
all  these  respects  not  in  the  least  deprived  of  his 
liberty.  Rather  is  his  liberty  thus  rightly  either 
by  him  employed  or  by  others  put  within  proper 
bounds. 

Here,  of  course,  we  are  not  speaking  of  an  ab- 


1. 


COMMON  RIGHTS  AND  DUTIES. 


23 


solute  or  mere  theoretical  liberty,  nor  do  we  con  • 
found  liberty  with  license.  We  are  speaking  of  a 
conditional  freedom,  such  as  is  both  practicable 
among  men  and  real.  The  abstract  definition  of  a 
Cicero,  according  to  which  liberty  is  the  “potestas 
vivendi  ut  velis,”  we  do  not  believe  the  correct  one. 
The  mere  concomitants  of  power  and  desire  do  not 
constitute  true  liberty:  justice,  at  least,  must  be 
added  if  not  goodness.  It  is  not  the  power  to  do 
what  one  wills  unless  one  wills  to  do  only  what  is 
right  and  what  comes  within  man’s  appointed 
sphere  of  action.  The  desires  of  man  may  extend 
to  things  right  and  wrong,  possible  and  impossible; 
and  to  call  the  gratification  or  the  ability  to  gratify 
each  and  every  desire  that  may  arise  in  the  human 
heart,  liberty,  comes  little  short  of  making  man  a 
being  divine  and  his  liberty  a  thing  devilish.  The 
freedom  of  man  is  this  that  he  be  able  and  free  to 
do  what  he  wills  but  that  he  wills  to  do  only  what 
is  accordant  with  the  will  of  God  concerning  his 
nature  and  destiny.  These,  the  nature  and  destiny 
of  man,  not  such  as  they  may  be  but  such  as  they 
are  designed  to  be,  constitute  the  basis,  and  fur¬ 
nish  us  a  criterion,  of  whatever  is  worthy  of  the 
name  of  human  liberty.  To  apply  this  term,  the 
import  of  which  is  comprehensive  only  of  things 
to  us  sacred  and  good,  to  actions  other  than  good, 
is  worse  than  an  impropriety  of  language — it  is 
profanation. 

Man  in  his  dual  or,  let  us  say,  in  his  triple 
nature:  the  physical,  the  mental,  and  the  spirit¬ 
ual,  is  endowed  throughout  with  powers  capable 
of,  and  calling  for,  development.  He  is  a  living 


24 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


soul,  and  created  for  action.  He  has  a  thousand 
wants  that  must  be  supplied,  and  ten  thousand 
more  which  he  seeks  to  gratify.  He  is  a  moral, 
and  therefore  a  responsible,  being.  He  is  made  for 
a  high  purpose  which  remains  to  be  accomplished. 
To  attain  the  end  for  which  he  is  both  created  and 
redeemed,  the  way  is  all  open  before  him  and  the 
means  are  all  present,  and  he  is  called  to  walk  that 
way  and  to  employ  those  means  until  he  shall  have 
become  what  he  is  designed  to  be:  the  crowning 
work  of  God’s  creative  goodness  and  of  His  redeem¬ 
ing  grace. 

From  man’s  nature,  its  needs  and  capabilities, 
and  from  God’s  design  concerning  them  we  reason 
to  man’s  rights  and  duties;  and,  above  all,  to  that 
right  and  duty  which  entitle  and  bind  him  to  act 
in  full  accord  with  his  created  nature  and  divinely 
appointed  destiny.  Now  to  be  free  in  both,  the 
exercise  of  this  right  and  the  performance  of  this 
duty,  is  liberty — true  human  liberty.  Hence  to  be 
free,  not  to  abuse  my  body  but  properly  to  provide 
for  it,  not  to  stunt  their  growth  but  to  improve  the 
powers  of  my  mind,  not  to  waste  my  time  but  to  re¬ 
deem  it,  not  to  disregard  obligations  but  to  meet 
them,  not  to  wrong  and  injure  but  to  perform  works 
of  justice  and  kindness;  in  short,  not  to  act  against 
but  ever  to  act  for  my  God  and  my  true  self,  such  is 
a  right  of  which  I  can  never  be  justly  deprived  and 
a  duty  from  which  no  one  can  ever  relieve  me,  and 
in  the  doing  of  which  no  one  can  rightfully  hinder 
me.  As  every  man  is  divinely  obligated  so  to  act, 
and  forbidden  to  act  contrariwise,  it  follows  that 
his  liberty  so  to  act  can  not  be  in  its  nature  a  mat- 


1. 


COMMON  RIGHTS  AND  DUTIES. 


25 


ter  of  human  leave,  of  license,  or  of  toleration. 
My  duty  I  must  always  do  be  it  with  or  without 
the  leave  of  others,  in  spite  of  all  opposition,  and 
at  any  cost.  My  rights  I  dare  not  disregard  nor 
abuse;  and  what  is  mine  by  reason  of  my  crea¬ 
tion  no  man  must  presume  to  bestow  or  withhold. 
Then,  we  tolerate  what  we  do  not  wholly  approve; 
but  the  things  here  in  question  are  good  beyond 
all  doubt  and  by  judgment  higher  than  that  of 
man. 

Personal  liberty  within  the  sphere  thus  de¬ 
scribed  is  inalienable.  About  what  constitutes  right 
and  duty  men  may  differ,  as  largely  they  do  differ; 
but  uncommonly  stupid  and  deeply  depraved,  in¬ 
deed,  must  be. he  who  would  question  the  principle 
that  every  man  should  be  left  wholly  free  to  do 
what  is  right  and  upon  him  obligatory,  and  that 
he  never  should  be  forced  to  do  wrong.  However, 
besides  these  and  coming  within  the  scope  of  our 
inquiry  concerning  man’s  rights  and  duties,  there 
are  many  things  which,  in  themselves,  partake  of  a 
nature  neither  morally  right  nor  wrong.  A  person 
may  marry  or  remain  single,  drink  wine  or  ab¬ 
stain,  build  a  house  it  may  be  of  brick  or  of 
wood,  buy  and  sell  at  home  or  abroad,  hold  his 
wheat  or  dispose  of  it ;  he  may  keep  a  public  house 
or  operate  a  rail-road,  practice  law  or  medicine, 
drive  a  stage-coach  or  publish  a  paper,  speak  his 
mind  or  keep  his  peace,  carry  a  watch  or  a  weapon, 
explode  fire-crackers  or  discharge  a  cannon  on  the 
memorable  4th, — and  thus  he  may  do  or  not  do  a 
thousand  things  which,  in  the  abstract,  are  neither 

bidden  nor  forbidden  by  the  moral  law.  Now  the 
2 


26 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


question  arises:  shall  he  be  left  wholly  free  to  do 
or  not  to  do  in  things  such  as  these — -just  as  he  list- 
eth;  or  in  the  doing  or  not  doing  of  them  shall  he 
be  restricted  and,  if  so,  why  and  to  what  extent? 

That  liberty  of  action  in  all  such  matters  can 
be,  and  when  rightly  applied  will  prove  itself, 
highly  conducive  to  individual  happiness,  there 
can  be  no  doubt.  Doubting  it  you  need  but  ask 
the  youth  concerning  the  matter  of  fire-crackers, 
the  man  concerning  the  drink  of  wine,  the  maid  as 
to  the  affair  of  marriage,  etc.,  and  all  scepticism  on 
this  point  will  be  dispelled.  The  truth  is  that  the 
desire  of  the  individual  to  be  without  restraint 
in  all  such  things  to  the  utmost  extent  practic¬ 
able  and  possible  is  as  reasonable  as  it  is  desir¬ 
able.  Such  being  the  case,  the  principle  should 
obtain  that,  even  in  things  which  are  in  them¬ 
selves  considered  adiaphorous  or  morally  indiffer¬ 
ent,  in  no  case  must  a  person’s  liberty  of  action  be 
restricted  or  taken  away  from  him  without  good 
and  sufficient  cause.  Conceding  this,  the  question 
presents  itself  whether  there  is  any  such  cause,  be 
it  either  for  self-denial  and  renunciation  or  for  con¬ 
straint  and  control  from  without — should  an  in¬ 
dividual  at  any  time  forego  the  enjoyment  of  his 
personal  liberty,  and  can  he  on  any  just  grounds  be 
coerced  to  do  so  by  others?  Certain  it  is  that  this 
very  thing  is  done.  Some  voluntarily  keep  with¬ 
in  bounds  in  the  exercise  of  their  personal  rights; 
others  are  forced  to  do  so.  And  these  are  things 
which  we  all  witness  day  by  day,  so  common  are 
they.  But  how  many  of  us  inquire  into  the  wis¬ 
dom  and  justice,  the  necessity  and  utility  of  their 


§1. 


COMMON  RIGHTS  AND  DUTIES. 


27 


doing?  And  yet  it  is  a  question  of  great  moment 
for  us  all.  Our  liberty  is  dear  to  us  above  many 
things :  if  so,  why  should  it  suffer  abridgment,  be 
it  to  any  extent  whatever?  Let  us  try  to  under¬ 
stand  this  matter. 

So  long  as  our  good  friends,  Robinson  Crusoe 
and  his  man  Friday,  were  alone  in  a  land  seem¬ 
ingly  all  their  own  they  were  entitled  and  they 
were  free  to  pitch  their  tent,  to  plant  their  corn,  to 
catch  their  fish,  and  to  swing  their  axes,  wherever 
they  pleased.  They  were  free  to  clear  any  fence, 
to  climb  any  tree,  and  to  pluck  pippins  or  russets 
to  their  hearts  content  —  if  only  they  could  find 
opportunity  to  do  such  pleasurable  things.  Nor 
was  there  any  need  of  fear,  of  haste,  or  of  self-re¬ 
proach,  while  they  might  be  so  engaged.  They 
could  lay  their  hands  on  any  ox  or  ass  and  call 
him  all  their  own,  if  there  were  but  any  ox  or  ass 
to  stroll  into  their  way.  As  to  the  matter  simply 
of  right  and  liberty  they  were  as  free  to  slay  chick¬ 
ens  as  we  are  free  to  slay  their  rapacious  and  deadly 
foe,  the  hawk;  that  is,  wherever  and  whenever  we 
have  the  opportunity.  All  these  and  many,  many 
more  things  like  them  and  just  as  delightful,  they 
were  free  to  do,  and  in  them  all  there  would  have 
been  neither  trespass  nor  harm. 

But  what  if  you  and  a  thousand  others  had 
been  established  in  that  famous  island  before 
them,  could  Crusoe  and  Friday  then  have  come 
and  pitched  their  tent,  and  planted  their  corn, 
caught  their  fish  and  felled  trees,  picked  apples 
and  appropriated  cattle,  as  ever  and  wherever 
they  pleased  ?  Not  so.  And  we  all  have  at  least 


28 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


a  remote  idea  of  the  reason  why.  So,  too,  had 
you  and  I  and  a  thousand  others  drifted  to  that 
land  of  solitude  together  with  Crusoe  and  Friday, 
instead  of  preceding  them  there  as  we  have  sup¬ 
posed,  the  case  would  not  have  been  materially 
different.  In  either  event  our  good  friends  would 
have  been  bound  to  regard  our  rights  and  needs  as 
well  as  their  own,  and  accordingly  they  would 
have  been  held  to  govern  themselves.  Were  they 
foolishly  and  wrongfully  to  have  ignored  our  pres¬ 
ence  and  slighted  our  claims,  evils  might  have  be¬ 
fallen  them  greater  by  far  than  all  the  evils  that 
go  to  make  up  the  story  of  their  sad  and  dreary 
lives.  The  presence  even  of  but  one  man  in  any 
place  and  under  any  circumstances  affects  another 
in  many  ways,  but  in  none  so  manifestly  and 
directly  as  in  the  matter  of  personal  rights  and 
their  free  exercise.  Nevertheless,  there  is  not  one 
among  ten  thousands  of  our  race  but  would  rather 
yield  some  of  his  rights  and  resign  some  of  his 
freedom  than  wholly  forego  the  society  of  his  fel¬ 
lows.  The  declaration  of  his  Creator,  that  it  is  not 
good  for  man  to  be  alone,  finds  a  clear  and  lasting 
affirmation  in  the  heart  of  every  human  being. 
Howbeit,  Crusoe  without  his  man  Friday  and  all 
alone  was  richer  and  more  free,  though  far  less 
happy,  than  he  was  with  Friday,  whose  rights  as  a 
fellow  man  were  co-equal  with  his  own.  Here  the 
question  might  even  be  raised  whether,  by  the 
arrival  of  the  one  the  other  did  not  lose  in  reality 
the  one  half  of  his  “vast  dominions?” — to  decide 
which,  however  important  and  interesting  it  may 
be,  we  will  leave,  for  reasons  all  our  own,  to  the 


§1. 


COMMON  RIGHTS  AND  DUTIES. 


29 


doctors  learned  in  such  things.  We  are  sure  of 
this  one  thing,  however,  that  Crusoe  alone  was  just 
a  little  more  independent  and  free — though  less 
happy — than  was  Crusoe  the  master  and  mate  of 
Friday.  Crusoe  alone,  for  example,  could  close  his 
eyes  and  discharge  his  blunderbuss,  or  musket, 
or  whatever  it  might  be  called,  whithersoever  he 
pleased  and  without  fear  or  favor  of  any  body. 
Not  so  Crusoe  the  master  and  mate:  he  had  to 
ascertain  first  whether  or  not  Friday  was  in  the 
way  before  he  could  so  fire  at  random — he  was  not 
at  liberty  to  point  his  weapon  upon  his  companion. 
Thus  the  presence  of  the  latter  enforced  upon  the 
former  the  exercise  at  least  of  some  circumspec¬ 
tion  and  care,  and  of  a  consideration  and  restraint 
for  which  before,  there  was  neither  cause  nor  occa¬ 
sion. 

Having  thus  gone  abroad  and  back  in  time  to 
inquire  into  things  we  hold  to  be  common  and  uni¬ 
versal,  we  may  now  return  to  our  own  shores  and 
our  own  times  and  safely  apply  the  lessons  learned. 
The  Robinson  Crusoe  liberty  we  have  just  recalled 
to  our  minds  is  full  personal  liberty ;  the  liberty  of 
Crusoe  in  company  with  Friday  is  civic  liberty  in  its 
incipient  stage;  and  the  liberty  which  Crusoe  and 
Friday,  you  and  I,  and  a  thousand  others  might 
have  planted,  had  we  together  migrated  to  a  land 
wild  and  new,  would  have  been  civic  liberty — civic 
liberty,  if  not  perfect  at  least  complete.  We  would 
have  defined  the  nature  and  established  the  limits 
of  our  common  and  mutual  relations  upon  the 
principle  that  in  all  questions  affecting  the  soul 
and  conscience  each  one  should  be  entirely  secure 


30 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


against  coercion ;  and  farther,  that  in  all  other 
things  all  should  be  left  free  in  the  greatest  meas¬ 
ure  possible  yet  compatible  with  the  true  interests 
of  each  and  all  alike.  So  we  must  have  done  in 
order  to  have  done  wisely  and  well. 

Civic  liberty  is  the  God-given  liberty  of  the 
one  limited  by  the  God-given  and  equal  liberty  of 
others.  It  is  that  relation  of  men  to  men  by  which 
all  are  alike  free  and  independent  to  act,  and  to  act 
without  guilt  and  punishment,  so  long  as  they  do 
not  trespass  upon  the  rights  nor  interfere  with  the 
obligations  of  others.  Its  sphere,  and  hence  its 
measure  also,  are  both  determined  by  a  proper 
definition  of  what  constitutes  these  rights  and 
duties  to  which  it  pertains.  When  we  say  that  all 
men  are  born  free  and  equal  we  enounce  the  whole 
principle  of  civic  liberty.  The  word  “free”  denotes 
the  thing  itself  and  hence  its  essence;  the  word 
“equal”  points  to  its  bounds;  “born”  to  its  origin; 
“all”  to  its  extent;  “men”  to  its  reasonableness 
and  utility.  From  faith  in  one  God  and  Father 
of  us  all  we  arrive  at  the  reality  of  our  com¬ 
mon  human  brotherhood;  from  this  we  deduce  our 
equality;  wTith  this  as  a  standard  we  ascertain  the 
extent  of  the  freedom  to  be  enjoyed  by  each — and 
by  so  believing  we  bear  within  us  by  far  the  best, 
if  not  the  only,  subjective  assurance  of  its  proper 
use  and  preservation. 

Simple  and  truthful  as  the  principles  thus 
enunciated  are  in  themselves  and  accordingly  must 
appear  to  every  one  of  fair  mind,  their  application 
is  all  the  more  complex  and  difficult.  So  much  is 
this  the  case  that  the  profoundest  wisdom  and  the 


1. 


COMMON  RIGHTS  AND  DUTIES. 


31 


strongest  arm  are  at  times  hardly  equal  to  the 
task.  To  understand  how  this  comes  about,  let  us 
return  for  a  moment  to  a  case  we  supposed  above — 
we  mean  the  case  where  a  thousand  and  more  of 
us  were  set  ashore  upon  a  strange  and  uninhabited 
land,  there  to  remain  and  make  our  home. 

Many  questions  would  immediately  present 
themselves  and  demand  a  speedy  and  satisfactory 
solution.  Questions,  namely,  concerning  the  divi¬ 
sion  of  the  land  and  other  things  thereto  appur¬ 
tenant;  and  with  these  the  innumerable  questions 
of  rights  and  duties,  of  peace  and  order,  of  rewards 
and  punishments,  of  rule  and  obedience,  etc.  To 
settle  these  matters,  and  if  possible  to  settle  them 
to  the  satisfaction  of  all  concerned,  it  would  seem 
most  natural  to  call  a  general  public  meeting.  At 
least  that  is  just  the  thing  we  Americans  would 
think  of  doing  first  and  last  and  all  the  time;  and 
therein  we  would  manifest  our  superior  common 
sense,  if  nothing  more'.  The  meeting  called,  many 
things  might  aggrieve  us  in  the  outset.  A  num¬ 
ber  of  our  companions  might  not  attend :  some  on 
account  of  inabilitv,  others  on  account  of  indiffer- 
ence  and  indisposition,  and  perhaps  a  few  from 
motives  positively  wicked.  Of  course,  all  such 
actions  are  unreasonable;  but  we  must  take  men 
as  they  are — and  some  people  are  unreasonable. 
Then  among  those  attending  there  would  probably 
be  found  such  as  have  little  or  no  judgment  on  the 
matter  in  hand;  others  again  there  might  be  who, 
though  more  knowing  than  those  just  named, 
might  manifest  themselves  as  persons  wholly  de¬ 
void  of  the  sense  of  justice  and  at  the  same  time 


32 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


as  headstrong;  lastly,  and  worse  than  all  put  to¬ 
gether,  there  might  be  a  few  who  are  sordidly 
selfish,  covetous  of  wealth  or  of  vain  glory  and 
dominion  and,  to  secure  their  selfish  ends,  ready  to 
employ  any  means  and  to  resort  to  any  measures 
fair  or  foul.  Such  being  the  case,  think  you  that 
it  would  be  an  easy  thing,  say,  to  preside  over  such 
a  meeting?  that  it  would  be  a  pleasure  to  be  pres¬ 
ent  and  co-operate?  yea,  that  nothing  would  be 
hazarded  by  attending?  that  the  accomplishment 
of  its  great  purpose  would  be  easy,  and  that  the 
prospects  of  giving  .general  satisfaction,  and  of 
securing  safety  and  peace,  would  be  very  bright? 
Hardly.  However,  we  will  suppose  that,  in  the 
face  of  all  such  possible  and  probable  obstacles, 
good  sense  and  the  majority  on  its  side  prevail, 
what  was  the  real  object  to  be  attained,  and  what 
has  been  accomplished  by  this  meeting?  None 
other  than  this:  in  some  just  and  fair  way  to  ap¬ 
portion  and  to  convey  to  each  his  share  of  land  or 
its  equivalent,  and  then  to  secure  him  in  the  enjoy¬ 
ment  as  well  as  in  the  possession  of  his  property; 
farthermore,  to  determine,  so  far  as  possible,  what 
actions  in  any  way  questionable  in  their  character 
might  be  observed  as  right  and  free  and  which 
must  be  avoided  as  wrong  and  culpable;  lastly,  to 
give  permanency  and  force  to  the  proceedings  so 
taken  by  charging  certain  of  their  number  with 
the  care  of  these  things,  bidding  them  to  enforce 
whatever  has  been  enacted  and  to  perfect  whatever 
may  have  been  left  unfinished — and  in  all  this  to 
proceed  in  strict  accordance  with  certain  principles 
clearly  defined  and  permanently  established. 


1. 


COMMON  RIGHTS  AND  DUTIES. 


33 


Now  the  difficulties  experienced  in  all  this 
work,  and  in  its  constant  prosecution  as  well,  are 
which?  Summarily  these:  first,  correctly  to  ascer¬ 
tain  and  clearly  to  enunciate  what  things  were  to 
be  considered  right  and  free  and  which  obligatory; 
then  which  were  to  be  held  wrong  and  punishable, 
— legislative  element;  secondly,  the  interpretation  of 
the  text  of  things  so  established  and  its  applica¬ 
tion  to  persons  accused  of  trespass, — judicial  element; 
and  thirdly,  the  enforcement  of  whatever  has  been 
agreed  upon  and  ordained, — the  executive  element :  all 
this  on  previously  understood  or  adopted  general 
principles  of  action, — the  fundamental  law  or  constitu¬ 
tion .  The  coalition  of  elements  here  merely  indi¬ 
cated  signify  the  creation  of  an  organized  society; 
and  their  united  and  continued  activity  mean  a 
society’s  lasting  and  progressive  existence.  And, 
if  before  you  knew  not,  by  participating  in  this 
you  must  learn,  in  part  at  least,  how  very  perplex¬ 
ing,  laborious,  and  harassing  is  the  work — the  work 
of  laying  the  foundation  of,  and  of  establishing  and 
maintaining,  a  government — the  work  of  creating, 
upholding,  managing  and  furthering  a  State;  for 
such  is  the  meaning  of  the  proceedings  just  de¬ 
scribed,  crudely  as  it  has  been  done. 

Moral  and  political  philosophers  have  again  and 
again  propounded  the  question  of  State  origin ,  the 
one  advocating  this  theory  and  the  other  that.  So 
great  is  the  conflict  of  opinion  on  this  subject,  so 
bewildering  is  the  confusion  here,  that  to  this  day 
ideal  States  are  cast  upon  the  world  like  so  many 
foundlings — foundlings,  not  for  the  want  of  pater¬ 
nity  but  for  too  much  of  it.  One  reason  of  this  is, 


34 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


no  doubt,  the  fact  that  the  distinction  between  the 
foundation  and  the  nature  of  the  State,  then  also 
between  the  principle  and  the  end  of  government, 
is  not  sufficiently  observed.  Other  sources  of  this 
clash  and  chaos  are  the  different  schools  of  philos¬ 
ophy,  religious  and  political  bias,  the  varied  con¬ 
struction  put  upon  historical  events,  liobbyhorsi- 
cal  notions,  self-interest,  etc.  As  an  illustration  of 
what  has  been  said  on  this  subject,  witness  the  fol¬ 
lowing. 

“  First,  then,  we  must  determine  the  funda¬ 
mental  question,  What  is  the  State? — what  is  the 
philosophical  basis  of  civil  society?”  (These  ques¬ 
tions  are  certainly  not  strictly  identical.)  “To  this 
question  there  have  been  various  answers.  Con¬ 
sidered  in  its  relation  to  the  Church,  some  of  these 
answers  have  emerged  in  history  as  the  character¬ 
istic  views  of  ecclesiastical  or  political  parties.  For 
instance,  the  Papist  would  define  the  State  as  a 
creature  of  the  Church ;  the  Erastian  would  make 
the  Church  a  department  of  the  State;  the  Puritan 
would  regulate  the  State  on  Church  ideas;  the 
Hobbist  would  rule  the  Church  on  reasons  of  State; 
the  Quaker  would  abolish  Church  organization; 
and  the  Menonite  would  suppress  the  office  of  the 
civil  magistrate.*  All  these  views  are  held  in  our 
own  land  and  age”  ( Christianity  and  Civil  Society , 
by  Bishop  Harris ,  p.  14.)  Governments,  says  “the 
king  by  divine  right,”  are  an  immediate  gift  of 
heaven,  bestowed  upon  a  higher  order  of  men — for 
the  benefit  of  the  plebeian.  “A  more  certain  re- 

*  Bishop  Warburton:  The  Alliance  between  the  Church 
and  State,  chap.  4,  p.  41. 


1. 


COMMON  RIGHTS  AND  DUTIES. 


35 


ceipt  for  producing  misgovernment,  and  national 
calamities  of  all  descriptions,”  than  this  claim  set 
up  by  kings,  “  it  would  be  difficult  to  devise.”  Thus 
says  the  political  philosopher  Henry,  Lord  Brougham . 
Expediency,  continues  this  same  Lord  Henry,  “is 
the  only  governmental  principle,  and  the  only 
solid  foundation  of  all  rights.”  Nay,  says  “the 
Lord  Bacon  of  his  age,  the  great  high-priest  of 
legislation,  the  chief  among  law-givers,”*  Jeremy 
Bentham ,  it  is  not  Expediency  but  Utility,  Utility 
first  and  last  and  all  the  time.  But  while  his 
numerous  and  enthusiastic  followers  say  Amen  to 
this  oracle  of  their  high-priest,  there  are  many 
who  doubt  and  not  a  few  who  deny  its  correctness. 
Among  these  there  are  those  who  hold  that  the 
State  is  the  creature  wholly  of  a  stark  and  stern 
Necessity — a  kind  of  evil  that  is  inevitable  and 
which  must  be  endured.  Then  there  are  the 
speculators  of  the  school  of  De  Groot,  Pufendorf, 
Rousseau,  Locke,  Warburton  and  others,  who  de¬ 
fine  the  State  as  a  social  compact  and  accordingly 
would  have  its  origin  traced  back  to  a  contract  of 
individuals.  Another  theory,  and  akin  to  this, 
sets  forth  that  organized  society  comes  into  exis¬ 
tence  “bv  virtue  of  its  own  social  forces.” 

•/ 

To  these  notions  of  State-origin  may  be  added 
those  of  the  speculative  historians — or  those  his¬ 
torical  in  their  answer.  Among  these  it  is  main¬ 
tained  by  some  that  all  governments  originally 
spring  from  the  patriarchal  system  which  obtained 
among  the  first  of  our  race:  that  the  State  is  noth* 
ing  more  than  an  extended  family.  Unique,  if 


*  Bentham’s  Princ.  of  Leg.  by  John  Neale,  p.  14. 


36 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


nothing  more,  is  the  opinion  advanced  by  von  Hoff¬ 
mann.  “The  common  body  politic  has  its  origin  . . . 
in  an  historical  event  by  which  the  human  family 
was  divided  into  a  plurality  of  tribes — Kreise — 
each  independent  of  the  others.  For  every  part, 
into  which  it  was  thus  separated,  there  and  there¬ 
by  began  a  separate  history  in  a  land  its  own,  with 
a  language  its  own,  and  with  forms  of  social  and 
common  life  its  own.  The  State  is  therefore  by  no 
means  an  extended  family.  But  neither  is  the 
State  a  community  of  individuals,  and  least  of  all 
a  community  of  individuals  by  compact.  Individ¬ 
uals  are  members  of  the  common  body  by  virtue 
of  their  membership  in  the  family.  The  State  is 
a  number  of  families  .  .  .  bound  together.  That  in¬ 
dividuals  can  also  belong  to  organized  society  is 
an  accidental  exception.”  ( Theol .  Moral.,  p.  262.) 
Thus  from  all  that  has  been  said  on  the  subject  of 
State-origin  it  appears  that  doubt  and  darkness 
envelop  it  to  such  an  extent  that  it  can  do  no 
harm  to  advance  another  notion  about  the  matter 
in  question.  We  give  it  in  -the  laconic  words  of 
Topsy:  “I  spect  I  grow’d!” 

There  is  evidently  more  or  less  of  truth  and 
good  in  all  these  divers  and  divergent  views  con¬ 
cerning  the  genesis  of  the  State.  We  believe  that 
God  and  the  Church,  that  expediency  and  utility, 
want  and  necessity,  the  forces  social  and  religious, 
the  individual  and  the  family,  the  patriarchs  even 
and  historic  events — have  each  and  all  of  them 
something  to  do,  be  it  much  or  little,  with  the 
paternity  of  the  State.  The  chief  difficulty  pre¬ 
sents  itself  in  the  attempt  to  find  the  true  unity  of 


1. 


COMMON  RIGHTS  AND  DUTIES. 


37 


all  these  factors,  as  also  in  the  endeavor  to  find  an 
adequate  expression  for  it  where  it  is  held  that 
this  true  unity  of  thought  is  discovered.  A  part 
can  never  be  made  to  cover  the  whole  to  which  it 
belongs.  Hence  it  is  a  mistake  to  fix  upon  any 
one  factor,  for  example  that  of  utility  or  of  neces¬ 
sity,  that  of  the  paternal  or  of  the  social  force,  and 
then  in  the  face  of  the  laws  both  of  good  thought 
and  language  proceed  to  press  every  other  factor  to 
take  its  place,  whether  or  no,  within  the  narrow 
limits  thus  set  up.  On  the  other  hand,  to  make  a 
choice  of  one — say  of  the  one  held  to  be  the  most 
comprehensive  among  them — as  the  leading  idea 
and  then  to  reduce  and  conform  all  others  to  the 
one  thought  thus  chosen,  or,  where  such  cannot  be 
properly  done,  to  bring  them  into  due  connection — 
such  is  a  process  entirely  legitimate.  In  fact,  this 
is  the  only  method  available  so  long  as  the  sum¬ 
mary  concept  has  not  been  found  and  formulated. 
Hence,  when  in  these  pages  the  doctrine  of  equal 
rights  and  duties  has  been  selected  as  the  funda¬ 
mental  and  leading  principle  in  the  discussion  of 
all  questions  pertaining  to  the  State,  this  is  not 
done  on  the  presumption  that  herein  is  involved 
each  and  every  subordinate  principle  entering  such 
discussion  as  by  right.  Rather  is  this  chosen,  first, 
because  it  is  thought  to  be  the  most  important  and 
comprehensive ;  and  secondly,  because  it  is  the 
leading  idea  of  our  own  civil  jurisprudence  and 
therefore  the  one  most  familiar  to  our  common 
mode  of  thinking. 

Man’s  sense  of  right  and  duty: — common,  be¬ 
cause  implanted  by  their  Creator  in  the  hearts  of 


38 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


all;  developed  in  the  course  of  time  under  the  edu¬ 
cating  influences  of  experience,  observation  and  pre¬ 
cept;  a  living  moral  force  constraining  to  action; 
entitled  to  freedom  of  movement;  divinely  author¬ 
ized  to  exert  itself  against  all  opposition;  purpos¬ 
ing  the  well-being  of  men ;  faithful  within,  and 
never  transcending,  its  own  appointed  sphere: — in 
this  we  recognize  that  intelligent  energy  which, 
more  than  any  other,  is  designed  to  build  the  ship 
of  State,  to  launch  it  upon  the  wide-spread  and 
tumultuous  waters  of  the  world,  to  secure  it  against 
injury,  and  to  direct  its  course  to  the  peace  and 
prosperity  of  all  within  its  hold.  Such,  in  the 
main,  are  the  principles  which  shall  guide  us  in 
the  farther  discussion  of  our  subject.  That,  for  the 
present,  we  have  in  view  no  particular  historic 
State,  but  the  State  in  its  ideal,  need  hardly  be 
mentioned.  It  is  true,  few  men,  very  few,  are  ever 
called  to  found  a  State;  but  all  are  called  to  do 
what  is  virtually  the  same  thing,  i.  e.  to  place  ex¬ 
isting  States  upon  the  only  true  foundation,  to 
secure  tneir  safety  and  to  enhance  their  efficiency 
for  the  common  good.  To  do  this  is  no  more  nor 
less  than  the  privilege  and  obligation  of  our  ordi¬ 
nary  citizenship;  and  for  this  reason  all  should 
become  conversant  with  at  least  the  leading  prin¬ 
ciples  of  state-craft. 


2. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  OFFICE. 


39 


§  2.  THE  STATE — ITS  NATUTE  AND  ITS  OFFICE 

DEFINED. 

“The  word  State  brought  with  it  from  its  Latin 
parentage  no  necessarily  political  meaning.  The 
Romans  said  status  nostrae  civitatis  (the  state  or  con¬ 
dition  of  our  civic  community) ;  but  never,  so  far 
as  I  have  noticed,  does  status  itself  mean  what  our 
State  means — that  is,  a  self-governing  community, 
organized  under  permanent  law  which  has  for  its 
aim  justice  and  the  security  of  all.  It  is  however, 
at  present,  the  best  term  for  denoting  communities 
on  their  political  side,  whatever  their  form  of  gov¬ 
ernment  be.”  (Pres.  Woolsey  in  Johnson’s  Cyc. 
App.).  According  to  its  present  technical  use, 
therefore,  the  term  State  designates  a  body  of  peo¬ 
ple  organized  and  operative  for  purposes  common, 
public,  and  civil  in  their  nature.  It  is  already  im¬ 
plied  in  this  definition,  as  well  as  by  it  presup¬ 
posed,  that  the  State,  which  it  describes  as  a  so¬ 
ciety  in  character  and  as  a  people  in  substance, 
possesses  the  power  and  exerts  the  authority  neces¬ 
sary  for  the  attainment  of  its  own  peculiar  object. 
This  its  power  and  authority  rather  than  the  body 
politic  itself,  we  prefer  as  a  center  from  which  to 
prosecute  our  investigation  in  order  to  arrive  at  a 
clear  and  correct  understanding  of  what  we  call  the- 
State  proper.  So  doing,  several  distinct  questions 
present  themselves.  First  of  all  it  \Vill  be  neces¬ 
sary  to  define  what  constitutes  the  power  and  au¬ 
thority  to  govern ;  or,  what  is  political  sovereignty 


40 


THE  STATE.  * 


I. 


— the  u jus  summi  imperii  .”  Then  follow  the  ques 
tions:  Whence  is  this  controlling  power?  In  whom 
does  it  ultimately  reside?  Who  may  actually  hold 
and  exercise  it  as  a  trust?  and  lastly.  In  what 
manner  may  it  be  made  operative? 

It  is  highly  significant  that  in  the  Scriptures 
the  word  tzouGla  or  power,  as  our  English  Version 
renders  it,  is  employed  where  obedience  to  the 
State  is  enjoined.  Of  this  power,  this  authority, 
this  lawfulness,  they  affirm  that  it  is  “of  God;” 
and  to  this  power  we  are  commanded  to  render  obe¬ 
dience.  What  is  this  power  which  is  to  be  obeyed, 
this  authorized  and  authoritative  power?  We  an¬ 
swer  :  it  is  the  people’s  sense  of  right  and  justice 
in  affairs  purely  moral  and  civil  and  to  which  they 
give  expression  by  certain  fundamental  laws,  by 
statutes,  rules  and  regulations,  and  to  which  they 
demand  conformity  of  action  by  force  moral  and, 
if  need  be,  physical. 

When  a  fellow  both  strong  and  shrewd,  and 
with  thievish  proclivities  stronger  still,  after  all 
thinks  it  the  better  part  of  valor  to  curb  his  rul¬ 
ing  passion  and  not  “take  in”  Mrs.  Smith’s  gold 
and  silver  plate,  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten  he  so  con¬ 
cludes  upon  in-action  not  from  any  fear  for  Mr.  S. 
nor  from  any  kindly  consideration  for  Mrs.  S. — 0 
no!  he  so  does  wholly  from  wholesome  “respect” 
for  the  people’s  sense  of  right  and  justice.  Again, 
when  you  and  I,  free  and  worthy  citizens  of  these 
U.  States,  and  men  of  means  and  influence,  too, 
withal  that  follow  Tom  O’Flaherty,  by  any  way  or 
by-way,  and  that  at  any  hour  of  day  or  night,  to 
appear  before  a  court  of  justice:  we  do  so  not  from 


2. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  OFFICE. 


41 


any  particular  attachment  we  might  have  for  Tom 
or  Tom’s  society,  least  of  all  is  it  done  from  any  fear 
of  that  club  we  see  dangling  by  his  side.  No  sir! 
as  reasonable  men  we  submit  to  his  imperative 
summons  only  from  a  regard  for,  and  in  deference 
to,  the  sovereign  power  that  has  commissioned  him- 
As  friends  of  peace  and  order,  and  as  lovers  of  right 
and  justice,  we  obey  their  voice,  and  so  to  obey  we 
esteem  an  indispensable  duty  if  not  an  unexcep¬ 
tionable  honor.  Subordination  to  the  State  is  dis¬ 
honorable  to  no  one,  be  he  saint  or  sinner,  king  or 
beggar.  If  it  were,  then  were  we  all  dishonored; 
then  to  bid  defiance  to  the  common  law  were  a  vir¬ 
tue  ;  and  among  us  the  lawless,  roving  gipsy  would 
be  the  wiser  and  the  nobler  man. 

He,  of  course,  who  discerns  in  the  power  of 
State  nothing  better  and  higher  than  the  mere  ar¬ 
bitrary  will  of  man,  must  as  its  subject  consider 
himself  a  person  deeply  abased  and,  now  and  then, 
badly  used.  But  there  is  little  sense  in  a  view 
such  as  this;  and  if  it  breeds  bitterness  in  the  soul 
and  rancor  in  the  breast,  as  at  times  it  must,  such 
misery  is  wholly  without  cause.  By  reason  of  hu¬ 
man  frailty,  and  of  depravity  too,  there  may  be, 
there  always  are,  mingled  with  the  true  principles 
of  government  things  that  are  foreign  to  them. 
The  principles  themselves,  however,  are  none  other 
than  those  which  underlie  and  pervade,  describe 
and  secure  our  common  rights  and  obligations  — 
in  short,  the  principles  of  common  justice.  “Jus¬ 
tice”  —  says  Alexander  H.  Stephens  —  “is  the 
great  regulator  in  the  government  of  human  af¬ 
fairs,  as  gravitation  is  in  the  government  of  the 
2* 


42 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


material  universe  .  .  .  Justice,  rightly  administered, 
stays  discord  and  produces  peace,  quiet,  order,  and 
happiness  in  communities,  states,  and  kingdoms. 
The  rule  of  justice  is  the  divine  injunction,  appli¬ 
cable  alike  to  all:  ‘As  ye  would  that  men  should  do 
to  you,  do  ye  also  to  them  likewise’.”  These  prin¬ 
ciples  in  themselves  are  unchangeable  and  eternal, 
as  are  all  truths  of  this  class.  As  they  pertain  to 
man  so  are  they  designed  for  his  good,  and  only  for 
his  good.  But  in  part  it  is  left  for  man  to  discover 
them  and  to  interpret  them;  then  also  to  define 
and  to  publish,  to  apply  and  to  enforce  them.  And 
it  is  in  this  their  human  handling  that  they  be¬ 
come,  in  a  measure  greater  or  less,  corrupted,  oner¬ 
ous,  and  pernicious;  and  yet  not  the  principles 
themselves,  properly  speaking;  but  things  false 
and  unjust  are  substituted  for  them,  or  are  attached 
to  them,  and  in  their  guise  made  to  bear  upon 
human  affairs. 

i 

What  then  constitutes  the  real  essence  of  the 
power  of  State  is  not  man;  for  we  distinguish  be¬ 
tween  sovereignty  and  the  sovereign,  between  the 
power  and  the  one  holding  and  wielding  it — be  it  a 
power  so  held  as  one  inherent  in  himself  or  in 
trust  of  another,  we  ask  not  here.  This  essence  of 
power  is  a  something  in  man,  partly  innate,  partly 
acquired.  But  yet  again  it  is  not  his  will,  nor  any¬ 
thing  produced  by  it,  nor  his  heart  or  the  desires  of 
his  heart.  It  is  that  something  in  him  which, 
based  upon  a  consciousness  of  himself  as  a  rational 
and  moral  being,  and  as  a  being  designed  for  a 
high  order  of  existence,  demands  that  he  live,  and 
be  left  free  to  live,  in  full  accordance  with  this  his 


§2. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  OFFICE. 


43 


nature  and  destiny;  and  desires ,  moreover,  that  all 
and  all  things  about  him  be  made  to  subserve  this 
purpose  of  his  being.  The  object  of  the  State  is  to 
protect  man  in  his  rights,  and  in  his  freedom  to 
live  consistently  with  his  true  self  and  with  the 
end  for  which  he  was  made.  Reasoning  back  from 
the  object  to  the  principle  and  therefore  to  the 
power  of  State,  what  other  can  these  possibly  be 
than  this  same  common  right  and  duty  of  man 
and  his  sense  of  them?  These  then,  we  conclude, 
constitute  the  principle  and  power  of  State — the 
k-ouGia  of  the  Scriptures  to  which  these  would 
hold  us  all  to  render  obedience  unot  only  for ‘wrath, 
but  also  for  conscience ’  sake”  According  to  this  view 
our  subordination  to  the  State  is  not  a  subjection 
to  men  or  a  body  of  men,  not  to  human  arbitrari¬ 
ness,  caprice,  and  wantonness — no,  it  is  a  submis¬ 
sion,  and  should  be  a  devotion,  to  something  that 
is,  in  its  inmost  self  and  true  nature,  divine. 

Conceiving  the  essence  of  political  sovereignty 
to  be  a  moral  principle,  not  a  device  nor  a  mere  ex¬ 
pedient  and  whim  of  man,  the  question  whence  it 
is  is  really  solved.  “For  there  is  no  power  but 
of  God:  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God” 
Obedience  to  the  State  is  obedience  to  God  in  a 
twofold  sense.  It  is  His  command  that  I  obey  the 
law  of  the  land.  This  law  always  is  an  expression 
of  the  will  of  man,  but  it  may  at  the  same  time  be 
an  expression  of  the  will  of  God.  In  really  good 
laws  there  always  will  be  a  concurrence  of  the 
two,  whether  expressed  or  implied.  For  example: 
“Thou  shalt  not  kill,”  and,  “Thou  shalt  not  steal,” 
are  plainly  the  will  and  command  of  both;  and  in 


44 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


so  far  as  I  am  found  obedient  to  them  I  am  obe¬ 
dient  directly  to  both,  God  and  man. 

But  how  about  the  purely  human  law? — that 
part  of  the  law  which  itself  is  not  an  expression 
of  the  divine  will?  We  claim  that  also  to  this 
there  is  attached  a  divine  element.  Take  the  mat¬ 
ter  of  paying  tribute.  God  does  not*  levy  taxes, 
nor  does  he  order  its  doing  or  fix  the  amount. 
Yea,  an  exorbitant  and  unnecessarily  oppressive 
imposition  is  no  doubt  contrary  to  His  good  pleas¬ 
ure  ;  and  yet  He  commands  us  to  pay  what  is  de¬ 
manded  when  and  where  such  tax  is  levied.  And 
why  is  it  that  God  would  have  us  to  submit  to  de¬ 
crees  of  men,  such,  too,  as  He  Himself  does  even 
not  approve?  Is  it  that  the  will  of  certain  men 
may  be  gratified,  or  that  a  certain  few  may  be 
aggrandized  or  enriched  by  humiliating  or  impov¬ 
erishing  the  many?  By  no  means!  It  is  that  we 
may  escape  greater  evils — some  near,  others  remote. 
The  evils  near  and  immediate  are  those  of  personal 
fines  and  imprisonment;  those  afar,  but  instigated 
by  each  disobedience,  are  the  disparagement  and 
overthrow  of  government  and  all  the  ills  that  such 
calamity  brings  with  itself.  Briefly :  the  State 
is  God’s  own  creation  —  with  certain  restrictions. 
Closely  viewed  and  properly  speaking  the  State,  or 
rather  the  power  of  State,  is  not  “from  below”  but 
“from  above.”  Its  employment  and  its  form  and 
mode  of  activity  are  indeed  human;  but  in  its 
true  foundation  and  real  life  it  is  divine.  Call  the 
energy  which  creates  the  State  by  whatever  name 
you  please,  the  true  force  is  divine  and  clothed 
with  divine  authority.  It  is  God’s  will  that  there 


2. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  OFFICE. 


45 


be  rule  and  obedience  among  men;  and  acknowl¬ 
edge  it  or  deny  who  will:  the  powers  that  be  are  by 
Him  ordained.  The  power  which  the  State  wields 
it  has  derived  from  Him ;  it  is  a  factor  and  instru¬ 
ment  in  His  own  government  of  the  world;  He 
wants  it  to  serve  a  purpose  with  respect  to  His 
higher  economy  of  grace.  For  these  reasons  has  He 
ordained  “the  powers  that  be,”  and  has  He  allowed 
to  them  so  large  a  latitude  of  action,  and  does  He 
require  us  to  hold  them  sacred  even  to  the  extent 
of  submission  in  matters  unreasonable,  unnecessary 
and  grievous.  Holding,  as  we  do,  that  the  powers 
of  State  are  God’s  and  by  Him  bestowed,  it  follows 
that  our  subordination  is  really  a  subjection  to 
God  Himself;  and  our  obedience  is  therefore  more 
than  a  mere  physical  necessity — it  is  a  religious 
duty!  And  this  explains  why  we  are  to  be  subject 
not  only  for  wrath  but  also  for  conscience’  sake. 

Now  in  whom  does  this  political  supremacy, 
which  is  of  God,  reside? 

Ay!  ay!  who  is  the  sovereign — the  sovereign  di¬ 
rectly  under  God?  Who  holds  the  power  of  State 
as  an  immediate  gift  from  heaven?  The  impious 
and  senseless  say  that  it  is  a  something  that  is,  and 
is  very  desirable  to  have,  and  that  it  belongs  to 
anybody  who  can  get  it  and  assert  it.  The  heroes 
of  many  battles  say:  it  is  ours.  Men  learned  and 
wise — in  their  own  conceit — answer:  no,  it  belongs 
to  us.  The  king  maintains  that  it  is  his.  The 
pope  declares  up  and  down  that  it  belongs  to  no¬ 
body  but  himself,  or  to  whom  he  may  be  pleased 
to  assign  it.  For  thus  says  the  “Civilta  Cattolica,” 
a  doctrinal  authority  by  papal  brief:  “God  has 


46 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


simultaneously  ordained  the  civil  and  spiritual 
powers  for  the  external  government  of  the  world; 
He  has  willed  that  between  them  both  such  a  rela¬ 
tion  subsist  that  they  may  accomplish  in  common 
the  purpose  of  their  being.  Now  it  is  absurd  to 
say  that  the  spiritual  Power  should  be  subordinate 
to  the  political,  since  one  would  subvert  the  natural 
hierarchy  of  things,  were  he  to  subject  the  spiritual 
to  the  worldly;  therefore  nothing  remains  but  the 
opposite  rule”  (alas  for  the  world  and  its  logic!): 
“to  subject  the  worldly  to  the  spiritual.  This  re¬ 
lation  is  entirely  analogous  to  that  existing  be¬ 
tween  body  and  soul  ....  It  is  therefore  necessary 
that  he  who  is  in  possession  of  the  sovereign  power 
of  worldly  government  be  guided  by  the  pope  .  .  .” 
Again:  “While  the  State  has  rights,  she  has  them 
only  in  virtue  and  by  permission  of  the  superior 
authority :  and  that  authority  can  only  be  ex¬ 
pressed  through  the  church”  (of  Rome,  of  course); 
“that  is,  through  the  organic  law  infallibly  an¬ 
nounced  and  unchangeably  asserted,  regardless  of 
temporal  consequences.”  ( Catholic  World ,  July  1872). 
Such — we  imagine  Luther  would  say — is  the  arro¬ 
gance  of  hell.  However,  these  utterances  are  in 
full  harmony  with  the  famous  Bull — Unam  Sanctam 
— of  Boniface  VIII.,  promulgated  in  1302.  This 
represents  the  pope  as  the  vicar  of  Christ  and  the 
successor  of  St.  Peter,  and  as  holding  two  swords  in 
his  hands,  the  spiritual  and  the  secular.  The  one 
to  be  employed  ab  ecclesia)  the  other  pro  ecclesia;  the 
one  in  the  hands  of  the  priests,  the  other  in  the 
hands  of  kings  and  warriors,  sed  ad  nutum  et  pati- 
entiam  sacerdotis ,  that  is,  at  the  beck  and  suffer- 


47 


2.  ITS  NATURE  AND  OFFICE. 


ance  of  the  priest.  Accordingly,  the  Infallible  has 
decreed,  and  his  decrees  are  universal  as  to  time 
and  place — irrevocable ! 

But  while  soldier  and  statesman,  the  noble  and 
the  plebian,  the  king  and  the  pope,  are  wrangling 
about  the  great  and  good  power  of  State,  each 
claiming  it  as  his  own  by  first  right,  where  is  its 
true  and  rightful  owner — we  mean  the  people?  But 
too  often  these  stand  by  and  under,  and — suffer! 
Not  one  but  the  people,  collectively  considered, 
can  truly  claim  first  right  to  the  power  of  State 
unless  by  an  express  divine  decree  it  has  been 
given  to  another.  But  such  a  decree  no  man  and 
no  select  body  of  men  now  living  are  able  to  pro¬ 
duce.  However,  we  have  more  than  negative,  we 
have  positive,  evidence  showing  that  the  right  of 
self-government  resides  ultimately  and  originally 
in  the  body  of  the  people. 

The  fundamental  and  characteristic  element  of 
State  power,  as  we  have  seen,  consists  in  the  moral 
ideas  of  man’s  collective  existence,  and  these  ideas 
and  aims  live  in  the  common  convictions  of  the 
people.  Every  man  has  a  certain  sense  of  his 
nature  and  its  needs,  of  right  and  wrong,  and  of 
personal  rights  and  obligations:  and  this  his  in¬ 
tellectual  moral  sense  the  Creator  has  engrafted  in 
his  heart.  Of  this  moral  sense  all,  however,  are 
not  possessed  in  like  measure  nor  alike  conscious; 
and  in  some  it  is  perverted,  while  in  others  again 
it  is  improved,  by  outside  influences.  Combine 
this  moral  principle  and  consciousness  so  far  as  it  is 
found  living  in,  and  common  to,  all  or  most  all  the 
people  of  a  land  and  you  have  as  a  resultant  that 


48 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


truth  and  force  which  creates  the  State  in  order  by 
means  of  this  institution  to  force  for  itself  expres¬ 
sion  and  to  secure  for  itself  a  free  and  undisturbed 
activity.  This  “ common  or  national  Ethos” — as  it 
has  been  called  —  demands  the  State,  creates  it, 
supports  and  directs  it:  it  is  in  itself  the  Power  of 
State — the  social  moral  force  of  man;  and  since,  in 
the  main,  it  is  creaturely  and  instinctive,  though 
greatly  capable  of  improvement  and  of  perversion, 
it  is  God-given;  and  again,  since  it  is  common,  and 
not  bestowed  on  one  man  only  nor  on  a  certain 
class  or  order  of  men,  this  ethos,  as  the  living  prin¬ 
ciple  of  governments,  belongs  to  the  body  of  a 
people  as  a  divinely  bestowed  gift.  Political  sov¬ 
ereignty  or,  more  correctly,  the  supreme  civil  power 
is  a  trust  immediately  and  originally  held  only  by 
the  people.  These  are  sovereign  before  God,  and  as 
such  to  Him  accountable. 

The  fact  that  I  am  a  moral  and  responsible 
being  involves  the  other  that  I  am  entitled  to  free 
action  in  all  things  concerning  which  I  have  such 
responsibility,  that  is  concerning  everything  I  am, 
I  have,  and  I  do.  But  more  than  this:  it  likewise 
involves  the  fact  of  my  personal  obligation  to 
maintain  this  freedom  of  action  against  everything 
that  would  impair  it  or  rob  me  of  its  enjoyment. 
Hence,  on  account  of  my  moral  nature  and  my  per¬ 
sonal  responsibility  to  God  I  have  with  these  both 
the  right  and  the  duty  of  self-protection — of  self-gov¬ 
ernment.  What  I  thus  affirm  with  respect  to  my¬ 
self  I  must  affirm  with  regard  to  my  kind,  that  is, 
every  human  individual,  though  each  one  is  con¬ 
scious  of  this  his  right  and  duty  in  a  measure  his  own. 


§2. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  OFFICE. 


49 


This  common  right  and  obligation  to  assert,  to  pre¬ 
serve,  and  to  use  our  rightful  freedom  of  action,  He 
has  imposed  upon  us  who  has  made  us  moral  beings 
and  accountable  to  Himself.  But  obligations  di¬ 
vinely  imposed  can  never  be  humanly  exempted. 
We  can  never  rightfully  get  rid  of  them  by  any  act 
of  man,  whether  by  our  own  or  by  that  of  others. 
If  we  can  prevent  it  but  do  not,  it  is  a  sin  for  us 
to  be  enslaved,  to  have  our  bodies  injured,  our 
property  stolen,  our  character  defamed,  etc.  Now, 
though  all  do  not  consider  it  a  sin,  there  are  none 
who  find  it  a  pleasure  so  to  be  mal-treated,  and  ac¬ 
cordingly  we  all  unite  in  this  one  great  work  :  the 
work„of  securing  those  rights  and  that  freedom 
which  belongs  to  us  as  men — as  beings  rational, 
moral,  and  accountable.  And  by  the  doing  of  this 
work  —  which,  in  plain  language,  is  none  other 
than  the  work  of  establishing  and  upholding  the 
State — we  do  no  more  and  no  less  than  simply  as¬ 
sert  our  personal,  individual,  but  common  and  ir- 
remissible  duty. 

To  hold  that  political  sovereignty  is  originally 
vested  in,  and  ultimately  derived  from,  the  people 
—  individually  and  collectively  considered  —  has 
been  denounced,  even  by  such  worthy  men  as  the 
historian  Seckendorf ,  as  “  a  heathenish  method. ’’ 
This  it  may  be;  but  this  it  need  not  be:  all  de¬ 
pends  upon  the  spirit  and  mode  in  which  the  doc¬ 
trine  is  set  forth.  Though  neither  occasion  nor 
cause  offered  themselves  to  him  to  propound  and 
develop  it  formally,  nevertheless  we  have  good 
reason  to  believe  that  the  great  Luf/ur  h  Id  this 

same  doctrine.  Th  tically  stated,  the  doctrine  is 
3 


50 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


this:  First,  that  there  be  rule  and  obedience  among 
men,  is  the  will  of  God;  and  this  His  will  is 
binding  upon  all  men  alike.  Secondly,  there¬ 
fore,  that  these  themselves,  each  and  all,  must  see 
to  it  that  this  will  of  God  be  executed.  Hence, 
thirdly,  that  they  have  the  right  and  duty  to  ap¬ 
point  and  depose  their  own  rulers,  accountably  to 
Him  who  has  given  them  the  right  and  imposed 
the  duty  so  to  do.  Now  take  the  doctrine  of  the 
ministry  as  taught  by  Luther.  Thetically  stated,  this 
may  be  given  as  follows:  First,  that  the  Word  be 
preached,  etc.  is  the  will  and  command  of  God ; 
and  this  His  will  is  binding  upon  all  Christians 
alike — these  constituting  “a  royal  priesthood”  ac¬ 
cording  to  1  Fet.  2,  9.  Secondly,  therefore,  they 
must  see  to  it  that  the  Word  be  preached  in  its 
purity.  Thirdly,  that  they  may  attend  to  this 
matter,  every  individual  Christian  and  Christian 
people  must  be  entitled  and  free  to  judge,  to 
choose,  and  to  depose  their  own  pastor  —  subject 
only  to  the  word  and  will  of  God, — and  to  the 
counsels  of  men,  be  these  bishops  or  popes  in  so 
far  only  as  they  of  their  own  accord  may  please  to 
follow  them.  (See  his  Works,  Erl.  Ed.  V.  22,  p. 
140).  Now  first  note  the  analogy  between  the  two 
doctrines.  Then,  when  besides  this,  Luther  himself 
draws  a  parallel  between  the  office  of  the  Ministry 
and  the  office  of  the  State,  as  often  he  does,*  we 
have  every  reason  to  conclude  that  his  principle 
respecting  the  latter  was  no  less  democratic  than 
the  former.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  difficult  to 

*  E.  g.  in  his  Comment,  on  Exod.  cap.  3.  Also  see  V. 
XXXI  p.  221  etc.  V.  L.  p.  295,  etc 


2. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  OFFICE. 


51 


conceive  why  the  doctrine  that  God  gives  sover¬ 
eign  power  to  certain  individuals  and  families 
only,  should  be  Christian;  while  the  other,  that 
He  gives  power  to  the  people  themselves,  should 
be  heathenish. 

And  there  is  need  of  this  that  the  people  com¬ 
bine  and  act  conjointly  for  the  purpose  of  govern¬ 
ment.  For  there  are  among  us  two  classes  of  be- 
ings  who  dispute  this  our  right  and  duty,  and  who 
would  hinder  us  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  one  and 
the  performance  of  the  other.  The  one  is  predomi¬ 
nantly  anarchic ,  the  other  in  like  measure  mon¬ 
archic ,  and  this  in  the  worst  sense  of  the  term. 
These,  in  the  main,  are  the  elements  most  inim¬ 
ical  to,  and  constantly  endangering,  our  common 
rights  and  all  things  thereon  hanging.  They  are 
the  people  who  more  than  any  other  necessitate 
the  institution  of  the  State,  and  against  them  it  is 
chiefly  directed. 

To  the  first  class  belong  the  greedy  and  grasp¬ 
ing  of  things  earthly,  the  evil-eyed  and  slanderous, 
the  noisy  and  the  turbulent,  “the  light-fingered 
gentry  ”  and  the  gambler,  the  drunkard  and  the 
harlot,  the  burglar  and  the  murderous,  and  many 
others.  For  these  our  courts  and  prisons  are  estab¬ 
lished. 

To  the  second  class  belong  the  fanatic  and  in¬ 
tolerant,  the  aristocratic  and  imperious,  the  usur¬ 
per  and  “the  king  by  inherent  right,”  the  jesuit 
and  the  pope.  And  to  these  our  courts  and  prisons 
should  not  be  closed — no,  thither  they  should  be 
brought  more  often  than  is  the  case.  Albeit,  be¬ 
fore  we  proceed  to  say  any  more  about  one  or  the 


52 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


other  of  these  passions  dominant  in  the  hearts  of 
people  just  named,  we  may  as  well  be  honest  and 
acknowledge  that  a  predisposition  to  one  or  the 
other  is  latent  within  us  all — and  this  is  putting  it 
very  mildly.  There  is  just  a  little,  say,  of  the 
thief  or  murderer  and  of  the  king  and  pope,  in  us 
all:  all  of  which  signifies  that  the  State  we  have 
created  is  to  protect  us  not  only  against  others  but 
against  our  own  selves  also,  be  it  ever  so  little. 

Returning  to  the  matter  really  in  question, 
we  venture  the  opinion  that  of  the  two  classes  de¬ 
scribed  the  monarchic  is  by  far  the  more  dangerous 
and  the  more  to  be  feared,  both  on  account  of  the 
designs  they  have  upon  us  and  of  the  artful  ways 
they  pursue  to  carry  them  into  execution.  The  an¬ 
archic  chiefly  disturb  our  peace  and  covet  our  prop¬ 
erty,  but  the  monarchic  our  liberties  and  rights. 
The  former  are  comparatively  impotent  and  appre¬ 
hensive,  mostly  despised  and  generally  kept  under 
close  surveillance;  while  the  latter  are  powerful 
and  bold,  much  envied  and#  courted,  mostly  unre¬ 
strained,  and  well-furnished  with  the  means  neces¬ 
sary  to  carry  out  their  nefarious  designs — the  sub¬ 
jugation,  and  with  this  the  impoverishment,  of  the 
great  body  of  the  people.  With  fine  words  and  fair 
speeches  they  seek  to  beguile  us;  and  slowly  but 
surely  they  accomplish  their  base  intents.  Among 
the  nations  past  and  gone  there  is  not  one  people 
which,  if  ever  free  to  govern  themselves,  preserved 
this  their  freedom.  They  either  did  not  value 
properly  their  inherent  right  of  self-government 
and  deservedly  lost  it,  or  they  were  meanly  de¬ 
prived  of  it  by  dint  of  false  doctrine  and  fraud  or 
by  the  force  of  arms. 


§2. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  OFFICE. 


53 


“  Who  first  taught  souls  enslaved,  and  realms  undone, 

“  The  erroneous  faith  of  many  made  for  one ; 

“  That  proud  exceptions  to  all  Nature’s  laws, 

“  To  invert  the  world,  and  counterwork  its  cause  ? 

“  Force  first  made  conquest,  and  that  conquest  law, 

Till  Superstition  taught  the  tyrant  awe, 

“  Then  shared  the  tyranny,  then  lent  it  aid, 

“  And  gods  of  conquerers,  slaves  of  subjects  made.”* 

History  teaches  us  that  where  the  people  as 
such  do  not  properly  appreciate — or  perhaps  are  not 
even  aware  of — their  good  right  to  self-government, 
there  are  always  found  those  among  them,  or 
about  them,  who'  are  more  than  ready  to  relieve 
them  of  their  precious  burden.  So  often  has  this 
been  the  case,  so  full  has  the  world  been,  and  is 
it  still  of  kings  and  queens,  of  popes  and  poten¬ 
tates,  that  people  are  quite  easily  led  to  believe 
that  kings  and  queens,  popes  and  potentates  are  a 
higher  order  of  beings  than  themselves,  and  that 
they  must  be  especially  created  and  commissioned 
by  heaven  to  govern  over  common  mortals.  But 
against  all  these  misleading  precedents  and  appear¬ 
ances,  against  all  the  lofty  pretentions  and  the 
overwhelming  pomp  of  royality,  against  the  soph¬ 
istry  and  intrigue  of  a  servile  priesthood,  against 
any  thing  and  every  thing  that  may  set  itself  up 
against  the  doctrine,  that  the  power  of  State  is 
primarily  vested  in  the  people  and  is  their  inalien¬ 
able  property — we  oppose  the  simple  truism  that 
where  the  responsibility  is  placed  there  must  be 
placed  both  the  right  and  duty  of  freely  doing  the 
thing  to  be  accounted  for.  These  things  are  ethic- 


*  Pope' s  Essay  on  Man ,  Ep.  Ill,  241. 


54 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


ally  inseparable.  But  the  people,  individually 
and  collectively,  are  responsible  for  their  lives, 
their  properties,  their  doings,  etc.,  therefore  they 
must  have  the  right,  the  liberty,  and  the  duty,  of 
self-protection,  that  is,  of  self-government.  And 
again,  as  they  can  never  for  a  moment  be  relieved 
of  this  responsibility,  they  can  rightfully  neither 
divest  themselves  nor  be  divested  of  the  right  and 
duty  bound  up  with  it.  In  other  words,  whoever 
may  act  the  sovereign,  the  people  are ,  and  must 
ever  continue  to  be ,  the  sovereign.  This  leads  us 
to  the  two  remaining  questions  proposed  above. 

Who  may  hold  and  exercise  the  power  of  State ,  and, 
in  what  particular  form  may  it  be  made  operative? 
We  distinguish  between  the  master  and  the  ser¬ 
vant,  the  right  and  its  exercise,  the  obligation  and 
its  performance.  The  body  of  the  people  is  the 
master  and  has  work  to  do — its  business  it  is  to 
make  the  laws,  to  expound,  to  apply,  and  to  ex¬ 
ecute  them..  But  instead  of  attending  to  this  work 
each  in  person  or  collectively  the  people  may,  yea 
must  appoint  and  employ  some  few  of  their  num¬ 
ber  to  do  this  work  for  them.  Only  they  must  con¬ 
tinually  see  to  it  that  it  be  done  and  done  faith¬ 
fully.  Thus  the  sovereign  people  of  the  United 
States  have  their  work  of  governing  attended  to  by 
persons  they  elect,  or  have  appointed,  for  that  pur¬ 
pose.  The  sovereignty  itself  belongs  to  the  people, 
and  these  continue  to  hold  it  in  their  own  hands; 
but  for  execution  they  intrust  it  to  the  three  depart¬ 
ments  of  State  created  by  themselves  for  that  pur¬ 
pose,  to  wit:  the  legislative,  the  judicial,  and  the 
executive.  Every  one  employed  in  these  depart- 


2. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  OFFICE. 


55 


ments,  the  President  not  excluded,  is  the  servant 
of  the  people;  and  the  work  by  any -done  is  the 
work  of  the  people.  These  are  originally  and  ulti¬ 
mately  responsible  for  it.  If  it  is  well  done,  they 
have  the  praise ;  if  otherwise,  theirs  is  the  blame. 
“A  representative  democracy  ” — such  as  is  our  own 
form  of  government — “  is  where  the  functions  of 
government  are  performed  by  agents,  deputies,  or 
delegates  selected  by  such  electors  from  the  body  of 
the  people  as  may  be  empowered  to  make  the 
choice  by  the  fundamental  law  or  constitution. 
The  power  of  choosing  such  deputies  is  what  is 
known  as  the  franchise.  It  is  an  office  conferred 
by  organized  society,  and  therefore  a  matter  of 
trust,  and  not  a  matter  of  natural  right.”  ( Alex . 
H.  Stephens). 

The  reasons  why  the  people  govern,  and  must 
govern,  by  others  are  so  close  at  hand  and  so  ob¬ 
vious  that  it  must  seem  superfluous  to  point  them 
out.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  we  cannot  all  be  presi¬ 
dents  and  governors,  statesmen  and  law-makers, 
judges  and  jurors,  ministers  foreign '  or  domestic, 
mayors  of  cities  and  magistrates  of  towns.  Even 
if — and  this  is  a  very  significant  “if” — even  if 
personally  we  each  had  the  ability,  the  inclina¬ 
tion,  and  the  time,  such  a  state  of  affairs  were 
wholly  impracticable.  If  all  were  masters  where 
would  be  the  pupils,  whence  even  should  they 
come?  All  the  people  as  a  body  can  do  toward 
actual  self-goverment,  and  all  they  really  need  to 
do,  and  the  best  they  can  do,  is,  that  they  put  the 
work  into  able  and  trustworthy  hands,  to  see  to  it 
that  these  be  wisely  directed  and  restricted  in  their 


56 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


appointments,  and  then  be  held  faithfully  to  per¬ 
form  the  duties  of  their  respective  offices. 

Although  no  man,  and  no  combination  of  men, 
can  ever  rightfully  seize  the  power  of  State,  yet  the 
sovereign  people  are  free  to  place  it,  as  a  trust,  into 
the  hands  of  one  man  or  of  fifty,  of  fifty  or  of  a 
hundred  and  more,  just  as  they  may  think  best. 
They  are  furthermore  at  liberty  to  lay  down  the 
principles  and  fix  -the  conditions  in  accordance 
with  which  the  trust  so  committed  shall  be  held  and 
be  made  effective.  To  what  extent,  to  whom,  and 
to  how  many  persons,  with  what  instructions,  and 
on  what  terms,  shall  the  power  of  State  be  dele¬ 
gated  so  that  it  may  best  serve  the  interests  of  each 
and  all  alike?  Such  are  the  most  difficult  and 
momentous  questions  a  people  can  ever  be  called 
upon  to  decide.  For  thereby  they  determine  the 
form  of  government — they  decide  whether  they 
will  intrust  their  individual  and  common  weal 
and  wo  into  the  hands  of  a  monarchy  or  aristoc¬ 
racy,  a  democracy  or  a  republic.* 

This  matter  of  charging  individuals  —  call 
them  kings,  or  presidents,  or  what  you  will — with 
the  use  and  execution  of  the  paramount  authority 

*  “  I  know  what  is  said  by  the  several  admirers  of 
monarchy ,  aristocracy  and  democracy,  which  are  the  rule  of 
one,  a  few,  and  many,  and  are  the  three  common  ideas 
of  government,  when  men  discourse  on  the  subject.  But 
I  choose  to  solve  the  controversy  with  this  small  distinction, 
and  it  belongs  to  all  three :  Any  government  is  free  to  the  peo¬ 
ple  under  it  (whatever  be  the  frame)  where  the  laws  rule,  and 
the  people  are  a  party  to  those  laws,  and  more  than  this  is 
tyranny,  oligarchy,  or  confusion.”  Wm.  Penn.  Frame  of 
Oov.  of  Penn.,  1682. 


2. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  OFFICE. 


57 


in  affairs  of  State,  explains  why  and  in  what  sense 
we  are  to  obey  our  rulers.  We  obey  them  as  per¬ 
sons  whom  we,  the  people  or  the  body  politic 
proper,  have  chosen  or  caused  to  be  chosen  to  rule 
for  us,  and  hence  to  rule  over  us  also.  Now  in  his 
personal  character  a  ruler  may  be  a  very  inferior  or 
even  a  wicked  man,  so  that  in  our  person  and  char¬ 
acter  we  stand  highly  above  him ;  nevertheless,  in 
the  relation  of  ruler  and  subject  we  are  placed  un¬ 
der  him  and  we  obey  and  respect  him,  i.  e.  the 
holder  of  an  office.  If  any  office  is  degraded  by 
the  person  to  whom  it  has  been  intrusted,  all  the 
more  reason  is  there  for  others  to  maintain  its 
dignity  and  to  uphold  its  authority,  unpleasant 
though  it  may  be  to  do  so  at  times.  Especially  is 
this  true  of  the  great  power  of  State.  There  is  too 
much  dependent  upon  it;  and  people  cannot  afford 
to  have  its  authority  weakened  and  its  dignity 
lowered.  aA  jewel  of  gold  in  a  swine’s  snout”  is 
indeed  not  where  it  properly  belongs.  A  swine’s 
snout  is  neither  a  safe  place  for  it,  nor  a  place 
where  it  can  best  bring  gladness  to  an  appreciative 
eye.  And  yet,  in  spite  of  its  ill-chosen  casing,  a 
jewel  is  a  jewel  all  the  same.  Likewise,  if  the 
priceless  jewel  of  State-sovereignty  is  fallen  into 
bad  hands,  it  is  then  not  in  safe  hands  nor  in  a 
place  where  it  can  be  expected  to  do  much  good, 
yet  we  must  not  for  a  moment  forget  that  it  is  an 
invaluable  treasure  all  the  same,  that  the  treasure 
is  ours,  that  we  must  not  cease  properly  to  esti¬ 
mate  its  supreme  worth  nor  in  the  least  relax  our 
lawful  efforts  to  preserve  it  inviolate  and  to  have  it 
put  into  worthier  hands. 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


What  is  thus  true  of  a  jewel  misplaced  is,  in  a 
measure,  true  of  it  also  when  stolen.  People  are  at 
times  defrauded  and  robbed  of  their  own  good  and 
rightful  power  to  govern  themselves.  Instead  of 
being  left  free  to  delegate  it  to  men  of  their  own 
choice  and  in  a  manner  they  please,  they  are  forced 
to  surrender  it  to  any  enemy,  be  it  that  he  come 
upon  them  from  among  themselves  or  from  abroad. 
When  thus  the  weak  are  swallowed  up  by  the 
strong  and  by  these  are  incorporated  as  a  part  of 
themselves,  then  is  the  sovereignty  of  the  former 
merged  into  that  of  the  latter,  be  it  for  better  or 
worse.  And  whatever  may  be  said  of  the  justice  or 
injustice  and  by  way  of  praise  or  blame  concern¬ 
ing  such  events,  they  do  transpire  in  this  wick¬ 
edly  restless  and  changeable  world;  and  so  often 
have  they  transpired  that  the  world’s  history  is  in 
great  part  nothing  more  than  a  record  of  deaths 
and  births,  of  the  death  of  one  State  and  the  birth 
of  another,  following  in  quick  succession.  And 
facts  must  be  taken  as  they  are,  not  as  they  ought 
or  should  be,  nor  as  we  wish  them  to  be.  The 
simple  rule  obtains  here  that  every  one  must  sub¬ 
mit  to  the  laws  of  the  land  in  which  he  lives. 
That  being  the  case,  a  people’s  sovereignty  is  al¬ 
ways  the  sovereignity  of  that  State  of  which 
they  have  become  a  part,  even  though  they  may 
not  be  permitted  to  enjoy  its  free  exercise  and 
full  benefit.  Such  was  the  condition  of  the  Jews 
during  the  times  of  our  Savior.  Many  of  their 
leaders  reasoned  that  the  only  de  facto  sover¬ 
eignty  was  still  Jewish  and  not  Roman.  Upon 
inquiry,  the  Lord  directed  them  no  less  than  the 
Herodians  to  render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are 


2. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  OFFICE. 


59 


Caesar’s.  Had  they  followed  this  and  some  other 
good  counsel  He  gave  them,  how  different  might 
be  the  history  of  that  people  from  what  it  now  is. 
But  Jerusalem  would  not;  she  was  wise  in  her 
own  conceit,  and  following  her  own  counsel  her 
house  is  left  desolate  to  this  day. 

Farther  on  we  shall  speak  of  the  State  only  as 
such,  as  uthe  Powers  that  be.”  We  shall  speak  of 
it  in  these  pages  wholly  regardless  of  the  ques¬ 
tion  whether  the  power  to  rule  has  fallen  into  the 
hands  actually  wielding  it  in  a  manner  right  or 
wrong.  We  shall  speak  of  the  State  also  with¬ 
out  any  concern  about  its  form  of  government. 
Hence,  whether  its  functions  are  vested  for  execu¬ 
tion  in  one  man  or  in  a  body  of  men,  in  one  body  or 
in  several — whether  these  functionaries  or  officials 
hold  powers  limited  or  absolute — whether  they 
have  rightfully  or  wrongfully  come  into  possession 
of  these  powers — all  these  are  questions  we  con¬ 
sider  irrelevant  to  our  inquiry,  in  as  much  as  it 
chiefly  purposes  to  ascertain  and  set  forth  the  rela¬ 
tion  of  the  State  and  the  Church.  And  although 
we  shall  treat  our  subject  with  special  reference  to 
the  United  States,  nevertheless  the  term  State  as 
here  employed  may  stand  for  a  monarchy  or  aris¬ 
tocracy,  democracy  or  republic.  We  understand  by 
the  term  State  the  power  politic  organized  and 
which  as  to  its  first  and  real  source,  its  inmost  na¬ 
ture,  and  its  ultimate  purpose,  is  divine;  which  is 
originally  committed  to,  and  for,  all  men  alike  and 
therefore  the  rightful  and  indefeasible  property 
of  the  people  collectively  considered;  and  lastly, 
which  in  its  established  form  and  way  of  applica- 


60 


T>HE  STATE. 


I. 


tion  is  human.  It  is  an  institution  which  “  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  ground  of  its  existence  is  indeed 
divine,  though  as  regards  the  means  of  bringing 
about  and  the  form  of  its  existence  is  human  (xr c- 
Giq  dvttpaj-hr/).  It  is  not  therefore  to  the  Christian 
an  incarnation  of  the  divine  will  on  earth,  but  only 
a  human  copy,  with  very  many  defects  and  faults; 
and  all  the  different  State-forms  constitute  only  so 
many  ways  of  approximating  to  the  method  of 
God’s  government  of  the  world  in  right  and  right¬ 
eousness,  one  nearer,  another  more  removed  from 
the  divine  model,  and  no  one  ever  equal  to  it, — a 
model  which  Christ  alone  will  realize  in  the  reve¬ 
lation  of  His  kingdom  of  glory.  (Harless’  Syst.  of 
C.  Ethics  §  54;  2.) 


3. 


ITS  CHIEF  ARMS. 


61 


§  3.  A  VIEW  OF  THE  CHIEF  ARMS  OF  STATE. 

To  the  State,  having  a  great  mission  to  per¬ 
form,  more  is  necessary  than  the  mere  authority  to 
act.  The  work  to  be  done  must  be,  as  far  as  pos¬ 
sible,  exactly  described  as  to  its  general  nature  and 
object.  For  this  there  must  be  given  certain  fun¬ 
damental  rules  upon  which  as  a  basis,  and  within 
which  as  a  sphere,  the  body  empowered  is  to  pro¬ 
ceed.  Lastly,  the  means  must  be  furnished,  and 
these  must  be  conformable  and  adequate  to  the 
work  and  its  successful  accomplishment.  Now 
“the  fundamental  idea  of  the  State  is  Justice,  the 
right  which  exists  between  man  and  man  .  .  .  The 
State  is  a  jural  society.”  (Pol.  Ethics  by  Dr.  Lieber , 
Vol.  I.,  p.  161.)  “All  relations  existing  in  the 
State,  or,  all  strictly  political  relations  are  rela¬ 
tions  of  right,  jural  relations.  The  individual  de¬ 
mands  of  the  State  that  his  right — his  jural  relation 
to  others — be  maintained  inviolate;  and  the  State 
demands  that  the  individual  do  not  interfere  with 
the  right  of  others,  or,  in  other  words,  do  not  dis¬ 
turb  their  jural  relations.”  (Ibid,  p.  217.)  The 
object  and  duty  of  the  State  may  accordingly  be 
designated  as  that  of  Protection .  The  government 
must  secure  the  individual  subject  against  injury 
to  his  person,  property,  reputation  and  business; 
establish  the  limits  of  free  action  and  protect  him 
in  the  enjoyment  of  it  within  the  lines  so  marked 
out.  It  must  defend  him  against  all  undue  inter¬ 
ference  with  the  exercise  of  his  religion  and  with 


62 


THE  STATE* 


I. 


the  government  of  his  family.  It  must  insure  to 
him  safety  and  liberty  of  action  in  his  social  and 
religious  connections  and  intercourse.  It  is  de¬ 
signed  to  compel  the  individual  to  provide  for  his 
material  wants  not  by  fraud,  theft  and  plunder  but 
by  honest  industry.  It  is  to  hold  its  subjects  to 
settle  any  personal  differences  that  may  arise  not 
by  violence  or  brutal  force  but  by  arbitration  or  by 
process  of  law.  When  appealed  to,  it  is  to  assist 
every  one  to  procure  what  is  his  right  and  due  in 
any  matter  of  argument,  of  testament,  and  of  in¬ 
jury  sustained  in  person,  character  or  property. 
It  must  suppress  everything  generally  offensive 
and  demoralizing.  Throughout  all,  it  must  assert 
and  maintain  its  own  proper  authority,  punish 
contempt  and  the  trespass  of  its  commandments. 
Lastly,  when  the  public  safety  and  peace  are  en¬ 
dangered,  it  must  call  upon  all  to  stand  as  one 
man,  and  engage  them,  in  the  defense  of  life  and 
liberty,  home  and  country. 

In  this  our  general  description  of  the  object  of 
human  government  we  have  made  the  protection 
of  the  individual  the  chief  determining  feature.  We 
would  guard  against  that  pernicious  notion  where¬ 
by  the  State  is  considered  not  only  as  something 
distinct  from  the  body  of  the  people  but  as  some¬ 
thing  separate  from  and  above  the  people  and 
then  itself  is  made  its  own  object.  “Fatherland 
must  be  saved  at  any  cost”  cries  the  mad  Machia- 
velli,  and  he  would  accordingly  have  his  prince 
pay  no  attention  to  the  moral  nature  of  the  means 
employed  for  the  safety  of  the  fatherland  nor  in 
the  least  concern  himself  about  the  weal  or  woe 


§3 


ITS  CHIEF  ARMS. 


63 


of  individuals.  Over  against  political  fanaticism 
such  as  this,  it  is  quite  refreshing  to  read  what 
Vinet,  the  champion  of  individualism,  has  to  say. 
“It  is  to  the  individual  that  God  says  in  His 
Word,  ‘Come  now,  and  let  us  reason  together’ 
(Isa.  1,  13).  Society  is  not  a  being  but  only 
an  ‘arrangement’  (?)  between  personal  beings. 
Or,  seen  from  another  point  of  view,  society  is  an 
ocean  on  which  the  individual  soul  is  cast  forth  in 
a  little  bark  to  seek  the  way  through  the  rough 
billows  to  the  shores  of  a  new  world,  where  it  may 
land.  Both  the  ocean  and  the  bark  are  worthy  of 
admiration.  The  bark,  which  each  one  is  called 
to  steer,  and  in  which  we  are  to  reach  the  land  in 
yon  new  world,  is  our  own  individuality.  An¬ 
other,  not  myself,  guides  the  waves,  and  appoints 
their  way  over  the  great  abyss;  but  the  bark  is  my 
own ,  and  the  ocean  is  on  account  of  the  bark ,  not  the 
bark  on  account  of  the  ocean.  For  the  principal  con¬ 
cern,  purpose,  object,  is  that  the  bark  should  land; 
that  the  human  individual,  which  alone  stands  in 
immediate  relation  to  God,  and  is  the  special  object 
of  the  work  of  creation,  should  fulfil  its  destiny. 
All  depends,  therefore,  on  the  right  steering  of  the 
bark;  for  as  the  sea,  the  fluid  element,  which  is 
less  fluid  than  air  and  less  solid  than  earth,  has 
the  twofold  capacity  to  bear  up  the  bark  or  to  en¬ 
gulf  it,  so  also  with  regard  to  the  fluid  social 
element  on  which  individuality  is  launched.  One 
may  founder  in  the  ocean  of  society  as  well  as  on 
that  of  the  material  world,  and  it  would  be  of 
little  avail  to  examine  on  which  of  the  two  oceans 
the  most  frequent  shipwrecks  uccur.”  (Alex.  Vinet 


64 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


in  opposition  to  social  Pantheism.)  Between  the  ex¬ 
tremes  of  the  institutionalism  and  the  particular¬ 
ism  of  the  ancients,  as  also  of  the  more  modern 
realism  and  nominalism,  in  so  far  as  these  philoso- 
phemes  are  brought  to  bear  on  questions  of  State, 
we  adhere  to  the  golden  mean  that  the  State  is 
created  and  is  to  act  for  the  good  of  each  one  and  of 
all  alike — that  it  is  itself  not  an  object  but  a  means 
— an  instrument  for  the  protection  of  each  and  all 
its  subjects  alike.  On  the  one  hand,  the  govern¬ 
ment  is  to  risk  its  own  existence  to  protect  its 
every  subject  against  injustice,  be  it  at  home  or 
abroad  —  and  be  this  subject  the  most  humble 
among  them.  On  the  other  hand,  that  the  subject 
— and  be  he  the  most  noble — risk  his  life,  if  need 
be,  for  the  maintenance  of  the  government  and  for 
the  defense  of  his  country. 

From  the  general  characterization  of  State- 
business,  as  above  given,  it  already  becomes  appar¬ 
ent  with  what  means  and  in  what  manner  it  must 
be  furnished,  and  furnish  itself,  in  order  to  do  the 
work  of  its  calling.  Since  it  is  established  for  the 
purpose  of  preserving  inviolate  the  jural  relation 
between  man  and  man,  and  also  the  relations  ex¬ 
isting  between  itself  and  its  subjects,  it  follows 
that  it  must  be  provided  with  certain  authentic 
forms  describing  these  relations,  then  also  with  the 
power  necessary  for  their  enforcement.  This  its 
armor  is  twofold:  the  Laiv  and  the  Sword;  or,  in 
the  words  of  the  emperor  Justinian:  0  portet  ma- 
jestatum  imperatoriam  non  solum  armis  decora- 
tam,  sed  etiam  legibus  armatam  esse,  etc. 

Though  they  are  in  a  large  measure  the  pro- 


3 


ITS  CHIEF  ARMS. 


65 


ductions  of  the  people  themselves,  and  though  they 
are  incessantly  by  them  and  for  their  good  em¬ 
ployed,  yet  those  among  the  people  are  few  who 
have  more  than  a  superficial  knowledge  of  those 
things  which  really  constitute  the  arms  of  State. 
These  mean  infinitely  more  than  paper  and  ink  in 
buff-skin  binding,  and  more  than  a  sheriffs  writ, 
a  turnkey’s  chain,  a  hangman’s  rope,  or  even  the 
shot  and  shell  of  great  standing  armies.  They  are 
so  wonderful  in  construction,  and  so  fine  in  mate¬ 
rial  as  well,  that  a  short  visit  to  the  real  armory  of 
State  must  be  highly  interesting  and  profitable. 
Going  there,  what  will  we  see  and  learn? 

The  Corpus  Juris  Civilis — says  our  guide — a 
compilation  and  digest  of  Roman  jurisprudence, 
has  been  made  the  basis,  to  a  great  extent,  of  the 
municipal  laws  of  continental  Europe  and,  though 
not  so  immediately,  of  almost  all  civilized  nations. 
This  “Roman  law,  as  a  national  jurisprudence  from 
the  foundation  of  the  city  to  the  death  of  Justinian, 
in  whose  reign  it  was  fixed  in  the  present  shape 
and  ceased  to  be  a  growth,  extended  through  a  pe¬ 
riod  of  about  1300  years,  and  from  an  archaic  state  of 
barbarism  it  was  transformed  through  progressive 
stages  into  an  enlightened  and  philosophic  code,  so 
wise  and  just  in  its  principles,  and  so  lofty  in  its 
practical  morality,  that  it  is  susceptible  of  little 
improvement  from  the  culture  of  the  present  age.” 
(J.  N.  Pomeroy,  in  Johnson’s  Cyc.  II.  p.  1682). 
Thirteen  hundred  years  of  growth  !  And  what  if 
the  work  produced  is  such  as  to  be  “  susceptible  of 
little  improvement,”  even  by  this  our  most  wise 
nineteenth  century,  how  surprisingly  slow  has  been 
3* 


66 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


its  progress;  how  small  must  have  been  its  begin¬ 
ning;  how  great  must  have  been  the  cost  and  ardu¬ 
ous  the  labor  of  its  perfecting;  what  wrongs  and 
what  sufferings,  told  and  untold,  must  the  many 
generations  of  people  have  endured  whose  lives  and 
liberties,  peace  and  happiness  were  so  much  de¬ 
pendent  on  it!  But  after  all,  when  we  look  upon 
legislation  as  the  work  of  man  with  no  resources 
other  than  those  naturally  his  own,  slow  progress, 
grievous  mistakes,  and  imperfect  results  need  not 
astonish  us,  unless — we  are  wholly  ignorant  of 
“what  is  in  man.”  Even  in  our  own  day,  stand¬ 
ing,  as  we  do,  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  many  gen¬ 
erations  past  and  benefited,  as  we  are,  by  the  rich 
legacy  of  their  expedients  and  experiences,  of  their 
wisdom  and  warnings,  the  science  of  jurisprudence 
and  the  task  of  legislation  demand  the  service  only 
of  the  wisest  and  best  among  men.  And  than  in 
this  there  is  hardly  any  work  in  which  truly  great 
wisdom — here  a  combination  of  large  intelligence, 
of  a  keen  sense  of  justice  and  of  a  hearty  good-will 
to  men — can  be  more  honorably  and  usefully  em¬ 
ployed.  Alas,  that  just  in  this,  too,  what  might 
and  should  be,  is  not  always ! 

We  have  seen  in  a  foregoing  section  that  the 
actions  and  relations  of  men,  also  in  so  far  as  they 
come  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State,  are  of  two 
kinds,  namely:  such  as  are  in  their  nature  either 
morally  right  or  wrong,  and  such  as  are  in  them¬ 
selves  adiaphora,  that  is,  neither  good  nor  bad 
when  considered  apart  from  the  motive  whence 
they  arise  and  from  the  circumstances  which  sur¬ 
round  them.  Corresponding  to  this  classification 


§3 


ITS  CHIEF  ARMS. 


67 


we  must  also  interpret  State-laws,  and  accordingly 
distinguish  between  them.  No  power  of  man  can 
make  that  which  is  right,  wrong;  nor,  in  this 
sense,  make  that  which  is  wrong  to  be  right.  “  So 
far1’ — says  Cicero — “is  virtue  from>  depending  on 
the  enactment  of  kings,  that  it  is  as  ancient  as  the 
system  of  nature  itself,  or  as  the  great  Being  by 
whom  nature  was  formed  ” — a  saying  of  which  the 
best  Christian  would  have  reason  to  be  proud.  Men 
may  presume  to  declare  the  right  to  be  wrong  and 
the  wrong  to  be  right ;  but  within  this  sphere  all 
such  declarations  do  not  make  an  action  other  than 
it  is.  The  pope  may  anathematize  the  reading  of 
the  Bible  and  forbid  and  punish  it  as  if  it  were  a 
work  of  the  devil — and  all  his  creaturely  vassals 
and  rear-vassals  may  echo  and  re-echo  his  ferocious 
roarings  as  much  as  they  please — the  reading  of  the 
Bible  is  and  remains  to  be  a  common  privilege,  yes, 
and  a  duty,  all  the  same.  In  a  thousand  other 
things  the  pope — had  not  the  poor  fellow  lost  the 
power — the  king,  our  own  congress  and  higher 
courts,  ane  able  to  speak  more  effectively.  But,  as 
has  been  truly  said,  “A  sovereign  may  enact  and 
rescind  laws,  but  he  cannot  create  or  annihilate  a 
single  virtue.” 

What  a  harmless  thing  and  pleasure  at  the 
same  time — the  victim  not  consulted — it  is  to  take 
a  five-pound  bass;  and  yet,  when  the  sovereign 
people — not  consulting  the  pleasure  of  the  angler — 
declare  it  “  wrong,”  wrong  it  becomes  forthwith  and 
by  virtue  of  the  declaration.  Again,  to  establish 
post-offices,  say,  in  the  cities  of  New  York,  Chicago, 
and  St.  Louis,  and  to  carry  their  mails  at  two  cents 


68 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


a  letter,  and  other  matter  at  prices  accordingly, 
would  no  doubt  prove  quite  profitable  to  the  people 
of  these  great  cities  and  more  so  to  a  certain  R.  R. 
king  we  all  have  heard  about.  Why  now  does  this 
same  king  not  do  this  very  thing  at  once?  Is  he 
not  aware  that  “  there  are  millions  in  it?,J  Is  he 
not  able,  or  not  willing?  These  very  questions  he 
would  spurn  as  so  many  insults.  Why  then,  is  it 
perhaps  wrong,  wrong  to  profit  himself  and  thou¬ 
sands  of  others  in  such  an  honest  and  honorable 
way?  That  cannot  be,  and  is  not,  the  reason.  No, 
it  is  because  the  sovereign  people  of  the  United 
States,  for  certain  reasons,  have  thought  it  best  to 
take  this  kind  of  business  into  their  own  hands 
and  have  made  it  a  ivrong — a  culpable  wrong — for 
any  one  to  interfere  with  them  in  this  matter. 
Then,  to  show  what  circumstances  have  to  do  with 
laws  and  their  application,  this :  It  is  evidently 
wrong  for  me  to  burst  the  door  of  my  neighbor’s 
house,  or  to  fling  a  brick-bat  through  its  window  ; 
and  the  statute-law  will  interpret  and  resent  it  as  a 
trespass.  But  what  if  this  unlawful  violence  be 
done  in  order  to  arouse  my  sleeping  neighbor  in 
order  to  save  him  and  his  own  from  the  flames  of 
his  burning  house?  The  good  common  sense  of 
man — the  common  law — would  pronounce  my  ac¬ 
tion  right  and  praiseworthy  in  this  case,  violent 
and  unlawful  as  it  might  be  in  others.  From  ex¬ 
amples  such  as  these  we  clearly  see  that  State  legis¬ 
lation  has  a  double  signification.  At  one  time  it 
adopts  and  declares  that  which  in  its  nature  is  right 
and  just,  and  demands  it  to  be  so  observed ;  at  an¬ 
other  time  it  declares  and  forbids  that  which  is  wrong 


§3. 


ITS  CHIEF  ARMS. 


69 


and  unjust,  and  demands  it  to  be  avoided.  In  the 
second  place,  it  also  creates  rights  and  wrongs,  priv¬ 
ileges  and  obligations,  and  demands  that  also  such 
laws  be  respected.  In  the  third  place,  from  the 
last  illustration  above  given,  we  learn  how  the 
common  law — the  naturally  self-evident  and  there¬ 
fore  mostly  the  unwritten  law — may  serve  as  a 
guide  for  properly  applying  and  executing  the 
statute-law,  because  it  is  partly  superior  and  partly 
supplemental  to  the  latter. 

Meanwhile,  are  we  not  in  the  State-armory  ? 
And  what  do  we  see  but  laws?  And  what  are  we 
talking  about  but  laws,  and  the  making  of  laws, 
and  the*  purpose  and  use  of  laws?  And  laws  are 
but  so  many  words  and  phrases,  are  they  not? 
And  these  law-phrases,  dry-as-dust  in  substance, 
and  in  their  construction  how  lumbering,  can 
these  be  really  the  weapon  of  State,  the  mighty 
instrument  of  government?  Even  so.  It  is  this 
very  law  that  speaks  and,  behold,  the  people  come 
and  go,  move  and  rest,  do  and  forbear  to  do,  even  as 
the  law  directs.  Whence  is  it  able  to  do  such  great 
and  mighty  things  ?  The  answer  is  plain  and  near 
at  hand. 

When  God  said,  “Let  there  be  light!5’  there 
was  light.  You  might  say  these  words — yes,  and 
the  mighty  nations  might  say  them — and  say  them 
over  and  over,  and  for  all  the  saying  of  them  there 
will  be  no  light.  The  power  of  the  word  is  in  Him 
who  speaks  it.  Likewise,  though  it  is,  and  is  ef¬ 
fective  with,  a  majesty  much  inferior  to  the  divine, 
the  power  of  the  law  is  a  thing  not  to  be  looked  for 
as  being  in  and  of  its  verbal  and  verbose  form,  but 


70 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


as  resting  in  the  people  by  whom  the  word  of  the  law 
is  spoken  and  to  whom  it  is  directed.  You  may  have 
the  arrogance  to  command  me  to  muzzle  my  dog,  and 
very  likely  I  will  do  no  such  thing,  if  for  no  other 
reason  than  to  show  you  what  you  and  all  your 
commandments  amount  to ;  but  let  the  body  of  the 
people — the  government  — command  me  to  muzzle 
my  dog,  and  most  likely  it  will  be  attended  to  at 
once.  Little  as  may  be  the  power  of  one  man  over 
another,  the  power  of  the  people  is  indeed  very 
great,  and  it  is  this  which  is  expressed  and  made 
effective  through  the  law.  As  the  expression  of 
the  popular  will  and  determination,  the  law  is 
surely  a  powerful  weapon,  be  it  for  good  or  evil,  for 
right  or  wrong.  Without  this,  and  compared  with 
it,  that  other  armor  of  the  State,  i.  e.  its  swords  and 
bayonets,  its  cannon  and  shot,  its  forts  and  ships  of 
war,  its  penalties  and  prisons,  are  as  nothing. 

In  this  our  view  of  the  law  we,  of  course,  define 
it  as  it  should  be,  and  summarily  as  it  is,  not  how¬ 
ever  as  it  empirically  always  is  and  is  in  every 
particular.  Even  in  a  republic  there  are  enacted 
many  laws  which  are  not  the  outgrowth  of  the  pop¬ 
ular  sentiment.  Though  some  of  them  may  meet 
with  general  approval  and  thus  be  sanctioned, 
others  do  not.  In  consequence  these  are  often  ig¬ 
nored  and  in  time  become  wholly  null  and  void — a 
great  evil ;  for  there  are  few  things  which  so  readily 
undermine  the  usefulness  of  government  than  laws 
made  but  not  enforced.  In  other  words,  those  in¬ 
trusted  with  the  office  of  law-making  do  not  all  and 
always  consult  neither  the  just  will  nor  the  true 
good  of  their  constituents — all  contrary  perhaps  to 


3. 


ITS  CHIEF  ARMS. 


71 


the  fair  promises  made  in  the  unwholesome  days  of 
candidacy,  and  in  violation  of  the  solemn  assur¬ 
ances  to  be  faithful.  If  this  be  so  in  a  democracy, 
where  the  responsibility  is  rather  direct,  how  much 
more  must  it  be  the  case  in  a  kingdom  and  despot¬ 
ism  that  the  laws  made  directly  contravene  the 

«/ 

will  of  the  people.  But  while  it  is  true  that  no¬ 
where  every  law  can  be  said  to  be  an  expression  of 
the  popular  will,  it  is  equally  true  that  in  every 
form  of  government  the  great  body  of  the  law  must 
conform  to  the  will  of  the  general  body  of  the  peo¬ 
ple.  Were  it  otherwise,  there  might  indeed  be 
forms  of  laws  and  submission,  but  there  would  be 
no  obedience ;  and  where  there  is  only  submission 
there  is  no  government,  but  a  condition  of  out  and 
out  slavery.  Such  a  condition  of  things,  where  one 
man,  or  a  certain  combination  of  men,  so  hold  and 
exercise  power  over  others  that  it  requires  a  third 
party,  such  as  a  standing  army  for  example,  to  give 
force  to  their  commands,  we  cannot  consent  to  call 
a  government.  It  is  either  tyranny  on  the  part  of 
those  in  power  or  anarchy  and  revolt  on  the  part  of 
those  suppressed,  and  when  either  of  these  evils 
have  entered  a  land  and .  become  dominant,  then 
the  ship  of  State  has  in  reality  become  a  complete 
wreck  and  ruin,  and  then — we  have  no  business 
there  of  any  kind. 

The  real  armor  of  State  is  neither  cast  of  iron 
nor  forged  of  steel,  it  is  made  of  finer  and  nobler 
metal,  if  at  all  it  is  what  it  ought  to  be.  It  is  a  com¬ 
position  and  product  of  a  love  for  liberty  and  justice, 
for  peace  and  order,  for  prosperity  and  happiness, 
and  of  good-will  and  wisdom,  as  they  are  formed, 


72 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


upon  the  whole  at  least,  in  the  hearts  of  the  body 
of  the  people.  Upon  the  whole,  we  say:  for  it  is 
not  to  be  maintained  that  all  such  expressions  of 
justice,  equity  and  expediency  as  are  promulgated 
in  the  form  of  State-laws,  must  originate  in  the 
hearts  of  the  body  politic  as  such.  They  may  be, 
and  often  are,  derived  from  other  sources — such  as 
the  superior  wisdom  of  the  individual  few,  the  les¬ 
sons  of  history,  the  example  of  other  nations,  etc. — 
but  to  be  effective  they  must  find  a  favorable  re¬ 
sponse  in  the  social  and  moral  sensibilities  of  the 
great  mass  of  the  people ;  they  must  become  the 
property  of  the  people  so  that  these  may  be  a  party 
to  them.  These  intellectual  and  moral  forces  min¬ 
gled,  as  they  always  will  be,  with  a  little  wholesome 
dread  contributed  by  some  as  also  with  no  incon¬ 
siderable  measure  of  selfishness  added  by  others, 
constitute  that  mighty  instrument  with  which,  as 
in  the  form  of  laws  and  their  appendages,  the  State 
is  equipped  to  do  its  work,  be  it  of  peace  or  of  war. 
And  as  are  its  forces  and  means,  accordingly  is  its 
modus  operandij  namely,  strictly  legal .  The  State  in 
action  presents  itself  as  a  mighty  triple-headed 
body  employing  its  peculiar  sovereignty  in  the 
work  of  devising  and  making,  of  interpreting  and 
applying,  of  enforcing  and  executing  laws,  and  all 
that  may  be  therein  involved. 

And  herein,  as  in  all  things,  whatever  of  wis¬ 
dom  and  of  goodness  may  become  manifest  and  be 
made  effective,  the  praise  thereof  belongs  to  Him 
who  fashions  the  hearts  and  directs  the  hands  of 
men  to  will  and  to  do  only  what  is  just,  salutary 
and  laudable,  and  who  sets  bounds  even  to  all 


I 


4. 


ITS  SPHERE  OF  JURISDICTION. 


things  wicked  and  evil.  On  account  of  this,  happy 
are  we;  for,  in  the  language  of  another  :  u  No  man, 
no  human  authority,  is  in  such  a  wTay  master  of 
the  people,  that  the  maintenance  and  preservation 
of  the  powers  that  minister  to  the  moral  ends  of 
human  society  can  be  thought  of  without  the  prov¬ 
idence  of  the  divine  government  of  the  world.” 

• 

§  4.  THE  SPHERE  OF  STATE  JURISDICTION. 

In  order  to  determine  and  clearly  understand 
what  is  the  meaning  and  extent  of  its  sphere  of 
action  we  must  not  for  a  moment  lose  sight  of  the 
fundamental  idea  and  object  of  State-existence. 
The  object  we  have  found  to  be  Protection;  and  so 
extensively  is  it  thus  designated,  that  the  word  in 
this  connection  may  be  said  to  convey  a  technical 
meaning.  Now  it  is  evident,  in  the  first  place,  that 
whatever  object  is  to  be  protected  must  to  that  end 
be  put  into  the  keeping  of  the  protecting  body  so 
far  as  that  is  necessary  for  its  protection.  Desiring 
its  protection  for  himself  and  his  kith  and  kin,  for 
his  property  and  for  all  the  affairs  and  relations  of 
his  life,  the  individual  must  necessarily  place  him¬ 
self  and  all  he  thus  calls  his  own,  under  the  juris¬ 
diction  of  the  State.  From  this  it  follows  that  life, 
honor,  property,  business,  the  family,  social  and 
religious  organizations,  and  corporations  of  every 
description,  things  good  and  things  bad,  actions 
moral  and  immoral,  in  short,  everything  external , 
whether  good,  bad,  or  indifferent,  must  be  subject  to 
State  action.  The  State  must  have  the  authority 
to  take  cognizance  of  everything  to  it  tangible,  and 
4 


74 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


to  treat  and  control  it  as  the  nature  and  purpose  of 
its  office  demand. 

In  the  second  place,  Protection,  as  the  sole 
object  of  the  State,  teaches  us  that  whatever  things 
are  committed  to  it  for  this  purpose  do  thereby  not 
become  the  property  of  the  State.  Not  to  get  rid  of 
what  we  call  our  own  and  prize,  but  to  keep  and 
enjoy  it  without  fear  of  disturbance,  do  we  call 
into  existence  and  do  we  support  our  government. 
When  others  in  company  with  you  and  me  employ 
John  Warden — who  advertises  himself  as  doing 
business  of  that  kind — to  hold  for  us  in  safe-keep¬ 
ing  our  treasures  and  our  wives’  trinkets,  while  we 
are  “away  for  the  summer,”  and  when  we  pay  him 
for  the  service  he  engages  to  render  us,  we  demand 
of  him  several  things.  We  expect  John  Warden 
never  for  a  moment  to  forget  the  fact  that  those 
treasures  belong  to  us  and  not  to  him — a  confusion 
of  thought  which  is  possible  if  not  probable,  as 
some  people  have  learned  to  their  cost.  As  we  ex¬ 
pect  John  to  be  on  guard  against  himself,  so  again 

do  we  expect  him  to  keep  a  strict  look-out  against 

♦  _ 

others  who  may  covet  what  is  ours.  That  these 
may  not  steal  our  property,  John  must  devote  the 
necessary  time  to  its  safe-keeping ;  more  than  that, 
if  need  be  he  must  appropriate  some  part  of  the 
compensation  he  receives  from  us  toward  procuring 
and  keeping  in  good  order  a  fire-and-burglar-proof 
safe.  In  short,  he  must  faithfully  discharge  the 
whole  duty  of  his  trust;  failing  to  do  this,  and  our 
valuables  being  stolen,  be  it  by  himself  or  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  his  negligence,  he  is  criminally  guilty 
of  a  breach  of  trust — and  there  is  nothing  on  earth 


4. 


ITS  SPHERE  OF  JURISDICTION. 


75 


that  needs  to  be  put  into  a  place  of  safe-keeping 
so  much  as  does  John  Warden  himself. 

Analagous  to  this  case  of  covenant  and  trust, 
supposed  here  as  existing  between  John  Warden 
and  others,  is  the  relation  subsisting  between  the 
people  and  those  by  them  employed  to  govern  in 
their  name  and  behalf.  Here,  the  time  and  talents 
— with  certain  restrictions — of  the  officers  of  State, 
the  public  funds  and  claims,  lands  and  buildings, 
powers  and  weapons,  etc.,  etc.,  are  all  the  property  of 
the  body  politic,  and  must  be  used  by  those  intrusted 
with  their  management  as  so  many  means  for  ac¬ 
complishing  the  one  end  of  State-existence,  to-wit : 
the  protection  of  the  public  and  private  interests 
of  the  people.  A  waste  of  time  and  property  be¬ 
longing  to  the  people  is  a  breach  of  trust  against 
public  interests ;  and  a  breach  of  trust  against  pri¬ 
vate  interests  consists  in  this  that  State-authority 
is  abused  by  treating  the  individual  or  anything 
that  is  his  as  though  he  and  wrhatever  belongs  to 
him  were  the  property  of  the  State.  Howbeit, 
though  we  distinguish  the  violation  of  the  public 
from  that  of  private  trusts,  they  are  so  closely  in¬ 
terwoven  that  in  fact  the  one  always  involves  the 
other.  An  injury  done  the  people  as  such  is  an 
injury  done  me,  and  my  grievance  is  the  aggriev- 
ance  of  the  people  who  are  one  with  me  in  the  body 
of  the  government. 

Unless  the  individual  has  in  some  criminal 
way  forfeited  his  life,  his  liberty,  or  his  property, 
these  can  never  be  justly  taken  away  from  him 
and  treated  as*  things  belonging  to  another.  Such 
authority  is  given  to  no  man,  and  least  of  all  to  the 


76 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


State.  To  this  least  of  all,  because  it  is  humanly 
constituted  and  divinely  sanctioned  not  to  rob  and 
destroy  but  to  preserve  to  me,  as  best  it  can,  my 
life,  my  liberty,  my  property.  When  by  levy  and 
collection  of  taxes  it  demands  of  me  a  part  of  my 
money,  it  demands  what  is  due  it  by  virtue  of  con¬ 
tract,  whether  expressed  or  implied ;  for  I  cannot 
expect  the  State  to  protect  my  property  unless  I 
give  a  part  of  it  in  support  of  the  service  to  be 
rendered  me.  Taxes  are  the  compensation  due  to 
John  Warden  and  his  employes.  When  the  gov¬ 
ernment  forbids  me  in  certain  matters  to  act  with¬ 
out  its  leave  and  direction,  this  is  done  to  circum¬ 
scribe  and  protect  my  liberty ;  for  this  I  cannot 
possibly  enjoy  when  everybody,  myself  included, 
is  left  to  do  as  he  pleases.  Lastly,  when  my  life 
and  my  all  are  endangered  in  common  with  the 
lives  and  possessions  of  my  fellow  citizens,  it  has 
the  right  and  duty,  if  need  be,  to  demand  of  me  to 
defend  home  and  country  at  the  risk  of  my  own 
life ;  if,  in  that  case,  I  lose  my  life  I  lose  it  indeed 
for  the  State  but  not  by  its  will  and  decree.  In  all 
this  its  relation  to  me  and  mine,  the  State  may 
blunder  in  some  things,  and  even  criminally  wrong 
me  in  others;  but  this  cannot  be  done  from  any 
sound  principles  of  government,  but  only  in  rejec¬ 
tion  or  in  faulty  application  of  it.  The  principle 
must  hold,  and  be  upheld  at  all  times  and  under  all 
circumstances,  that  the  State  never  has  authority 
to  rob,  to  enslave,  to  murder  or  to  injure,  any  of  its 
subjects,  no,  not  even  the  least  and  most  unworthy 
one  among  them.  Anything  in  conflict  with  this 
is  a  subversion  of  the  whole  principle  of  State  as  it 
pertains  to  its  foundation,  nature  and  object. 


4. 


ITS  SPHERE  OF  JURISDICTION. 


77 


Easy  as  it  may  seem  to  determine  the  sphere 
of  political  jurisdiction  from  the  general  theory 
and  purpose  of  governments,  in  some  cases  this 
method  becomes  exceedingly  difficult  of  applica¬ 
tion.  Take  for  example  the  all-important  matters 
of  education,  of  morals,  and  of  religion.  Has  the 
State  any  right,  or  even  duty,  of  action  concerning 
these,  and  if  so,  to  what  extent? 

Ignorance  of  the  law  does  not  exempt  the 
transgressor  from  its  penalty.  Moreover,  the  prev¬ 
alence  of  ignorance  is  indisputably  a  source  of 
many  crimes,  and  in  so  far  it  endangers  the  safety 
and  peace  of  the  community,  and  in  a  thousand 
ways  proves  itself  a  public  burden  and  nuisance. 
Not  to  decide  here  who  is  primarily  responsible  for 
the  education  of  the  youth — a  matter  into  which 
we  intend  to  inquire  more  particularly  hereafter — 
and  also  distinguishing  between  the  right  to  de¬ 
mand  that  it  be  attended  to  and  the  work  of  im¬ 
parting  it  as  a  duty,  this  much  must  be  conceded, 
that  the  State,  conformably  to  its  office,  can  be 
rightfully  intrusted  with  the  work,  and  should 
have  the  right  to  insist  upon  its  general  execution. 
It  should  have  the  right  to  demand  the  education 
of  the  masses,  and  this  for  the  purpose  of  prevent¬ 
ing  crime,  securing  good  government,  etc.,  that  is, 
for  the  purpose  of  protection.  Especially  must 
this  hold  where,  as  is  the  case  with  us,  the  gov¬ 
ernment  is  “of  the  people,  by  the  people,  and  for 
the  people.”  Here,  at  least,  it  is  of  great  moment, 
as  indeed  it  must  be  in  all  lands  whatever  the  form 
of  government  may  be,  that  education  in  so  far  as 
it  embraces  reading,  writing,  the  inculcation  of 


78 


THE  STATE* 


I. 


sound  political  principles,  the  forming  of  civil 
manners  and  habits,  etc.,  be  a  matter  of  State  juris¬ 
diction.  Circumstances,  to  be  pointed  out  hereaf¬ 
ter,  render  it  necessary  that  the  government  give 
its  attention,  to  some  extent,  to  the  political  educa¬ 
tion  of  its  subjects.  What  this  branch  of  education 
chiefly  implies  we  give  in  the  well  chosen  words  of 
another.  “The  rights  and  duties  of  citizens;  their 
obligations  of  obedience  to  law  ;  of  seeing  that  good 
laws  are  enacted  and  enforced ;  that  the  weak  and 
helpless  are  protected;  that  the  grasping  and  unjust 
are  restrained  and  evil-doers  punished;  that  the 
enacting,  explaining,  and  enforcing  of  laws  are  in¬ 
trusted  to  competent  and  trustworthy  men ;  that 
the  rights  of  both  labor  and  capital  are  duly  pro¬ 
tected;  that  the  nature  and  rights  of  property  are 
understood ;  and  that  all  necessary  burdens  of  tax¬ 
ation  are  equitably  adjusted,  and  all  productive  in¬ 
dustries  are  properly  encouraged — these  are  some 
of  the  lessons  included  in  political  education.” 
(/.  P.  Baird ,  of  Com .  Board  of  Ed .) 

Religion,  and  this  really  includes  morality, 
although  it  is  a  force  which  more  than  any  other 
molds  the  affairs  of  men  and  nations,  and  does  ac¬ 
cordingly  affect  human  governments  either  for  good 
or  bad,  is  a  matter  which  from  its  original,  nature, 
and  object,  lies  entirely  beyond  the  reach  and  con¬ 
trol  of  the  State  proper.  It  is  in  its  essence  alto¬ 
gether  an  affair  of  the  soul ;  and,  in  the  words  of 
the  great  Reformer  and  champion  of  religious  lib¬ 
erty,  Luther:  “Over  the  soul  can  and  will  God 
allow  no  one  to  rule  but  Hinself  alone.  Therefore, 
whenever  human  governments  assume  to  dictate 


4. 


ITS  SPHERE  OF  JURISDICTION. 


79 


or  legislate  respecting  the  soul,  they  invade  the  do¬ 
minion  of  God,  and  can  but  mislead  and  destroy 
the  soul.”  ( Werke,  Vol.  22,  p.  82.  Erl .  Ed.)  “The 
civil  law  extends  over  the  body  of  man,  his  prop¬ 
erty,  and  whatever  is  external  on  earth — no  far¬ 
ther.”  (Ibid.)  Religion  is  nothing  external  but 
something  internal  and  wholly  spiritual;  it  is  a 
thing  of  man’s  conscience,  and  this  is  exclusively 
God’s  province.  “  In  this  respect,”  says  Dr.  Lieber, 
“the  individual  stands  above  the  State.  On  the 
other  hand  the  State  stands  above  the  individual; 
is  worthy  of  every  sacrifice,  of  life  and  goods,  of 
wife  and  children.”  All  affairs  and  relations  of 
the  citizen  come  within  the  sphere  of  human  laws 
and  regulations;  not  so  his  relation  to  God  and  his 
worship  of  God.  The  State  must  have  the  right, 
indeed,  of  legislating  concerning  religion  in  so  far  as 
it  expresses  itself  in  confession  and  act,  but  not  in 
a  way  to  influence,  direct  and  control  it.  The 
worship  of  God  should  be  wholly  free;  and  the  only 
duty  the  government  can  properly  have  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  it  is,  that  it  declare  religious  freedom  to  be  a 
natural  and  therefore  inalienable  right  of  man ,  and  as 
such  protect  its  free  exercise .  .  This  should  it  do,  even 
were  a  person’s  religious  performances  false  and 
foolish  in  the  extreme;  not ,  however,  if  they  are 
nocuous  and  pernicious  politically;  for  then  all 
such  actions  must  be  classified  no  more  as  strictly 
religious  but  as  political,  and  treated  accordingly. 
Here  the  principle  holds  that  anything  pretendedly 
religious  in  nature  and  practice,  but  in  either  re¬ 
spect  incompatible  with  the  true  and  legitimate 
idea  and  business  of  State,  is,  a  priori ,  not  religious. 


80 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


By  reason  of  their  respective  origins,  character,  and 
purposes  there  can  be,  objectively  considered,  no 
contradiction  between  the  ethics  of  religion  and 
the  ethics  of  things  political.  Whenever  a  con¬ 
flict  does  manifest  itself,  the  cause  thereof  must 
be  wholly  subjective  and  false.  Matters  are  either 
considered  and  insisted  on  as  religious  when  in 
truth  they  are  nothing  of  the  kind;  or,  if  they  are, 
they  are  falsely  adjudged  political.  When  either 
the  one  or  the  other  mistake  is  made,  or  both,  then 
trouble  will  most  likely  ensue.  But  of  all  this 
more  anon. 

To  our  own  United  States,  and  before  and  above 
all  to  the  least  State  in  the  Union,  Rhode  Island, 
belongs  the  great  honor  of  first  incorporating  this 
principle  into  the  organic  law  to  its  full  and  true 
extent.  Not  as  though  the  principle  were  Amer¬ 
ican  in  its  origin  and  recognition,  not  as  though  it 
had  never  been  brought  into  practice  an}wvhere  be¬ 
fore,  but  this  much  we  must  claim  for  our  own 
country  that  it  is  the  first  intelligently  and  fully  to 
apply  and  to  demonstrate  its  safe  and  happy  prac- 
ticabilitv.  The  Constitution  contains  but  two  short 

%j  t 

articles.  u  No  religious  test  shall  ever  be  required  as  a 
qualification  to  any  office  or  public  trust  under  the  United 
States;''  and:  u  Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting 
an  establishment  of  religion ,  or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise 
thereof U  More  important,  comprehensive  and  benefi¬ 
cent  laws  than  are  these  were  never  enacted  in  the 
history  of  the  world.  There  is  no  preamble  of  defini¬ 
tions,  of  reasons,  or  of  purposes,  but  their  sum  and 
substance  is  this,  that  religious  liberty  is  a  personal 
right — a  right  which  no  human  authority  can  ere- 


4. 


ITS  SPHERE  OF  JURISDICTION. 


81 


ate,  bestow,  take  away,  and  abrogate ;  and  then, 
that  the  attempt  in  any  way  to  disparage  and 
destroy  this  right  is  in  itself  not  only  a  wrong  but 
politically  most  unwise  and  disastrous  in  its  conse¬ 
quences,  and  that  therefore  the  State  can,  in  its  own 
sphere,  do  no  more  and  no  less  than  declare  the  free 
exercise  of  religion  a  natural  and  common  right  of 
man  and  then  protect  him  in  the  enjoyment  of  it. 
According  to  this  superior  and  only  correct  view  of 
the  whole  matter,  religious  freedom  in  the  United 
States  is  not  a  thing  merely  tolerated,  nor  is  it  a 
thing  in  its  subject  matter  and  form  positively  ap¬ 
proved,  but  it  is  simply  recognized,  designated  and 
protected  as  a  thing  belonging  to  its  every  subject 
by  reason  of  his  humanity. 

The  practical  reason  why  the  law  that  “all 
men  have  a  natural  and  indefeasible  right  to  wor¬ 
ship  Almighty  God  according  to  the  dictates  of 
conscience  ”  should  be  respected  by  the  State  and 
preserved  inviolate,  is  well  stated  in  the  following 
language  of  Judge  Hagans:  “The  religious  belief 
of  the  individual,  or,  if  he  be  a  nullifidean,  then 
his  no-belief,  is  so  much  a  part  of  himself,  and  con¬ 
stitutes  so  important  a  constituent  of  his  daily 
life,  that  it  is  of  the  highest  moment,  not  only 
for  his  own  happiness,  but  even  for  the  safety  of 
the  State  itself,  that  perfect  freedom  and  security 
should  be  assured  to  him.  The  terrible  religious 
persecutions  and  wars  in  Europe  ....  taught  our 
Fathers  these  lessons  which  they  have  embodied  in 
the  fundamental  laws  of  all  the  States.  It  is  one 
of  the  glories  of  our  country,  that  we  have  no  re¬ 
ligious  establishments:  and  our  experience  has 


82 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


not  only  demonstrated  the  wisdom  and  justice  of 
these  principles,  but  the  success  of  our  example  is 
felt  all  over  the  world.”  ( The  Bible  in  the  P.  Schools , 
Cin.  0.  p.  858). 

From  all  that  has  been  said  it  would  appear 
that  the  difficulty  of  ascertaining  the  exact  sphere 
of  State-jurisdiction  is  not  met  in  designating  the 
objects  which  are  properly  by  it  encompassed.  It 
may  take  action  concerning  every  thing  to  it  tang¬ 
ible.  The  real  difficulty  presents  itself  in  deter¬ 
mining  what  action ,  and  action  to  what  extent ,  it  can 
take  consistently  with  its  own  nature  and  calling, 
and  consistently  with  the  nature  and  purpose  of 
the  thing  in  question. 

Since  the  State  is  political  sovereignty — su¬ 
preme  power — organized,  it  is  evident  that  within 
its  own  sphere  it  is  supreme .  There  is  no  other 
power  given  unto  men  that  can  with  justice  or  in 
any  way  rightfully  set  itself  up  as  a  tribunal 
higher  than  it  and  to  which  the  State  were  at  all 
subject.  As  we  would  insist  upon  the  State  to 
keep  within  its  own  proper  boundaries,  and  not  to 
meddle  with  things  foreign  to  its  office,  so  must  we 
demand  of  all  other  institutions  and  powers  to 
mind  each  its  own  business  and,  least  of  all,  never 
presume  to  exercise  State  authority.  From  the 
very  nature  of  things,  the  same  supreme  power 
cannot  reside  at  one  and  the  same  time  in  two  dis¬ 
tinct  bodies.  If  it  belongs  to  the  people  and  is  by 
these  vested  in  the  State,  there  we  must  look  for  it 
and  in  no  other  body  or  institution.  In  thos£  af¬ 
fairs  in  which,  by  God’s  own  decree,  we  are  to  be 
subject  to  the  State,  we  cannot  at  the  same  time  be 


4. 


ITS  SPHERE  OF  JURISDICTION. 


83 


controlled  by  another  and  different  power.  Here, 
as  elsewhere,  we  cannot  serve  two  masters.  In  the 
affairs  of  government  proper,  this  is  our  only  master ; 
beyond  these  it  has  nothing  to  forbid  us  and  noth¬ 
ing  to  command.  It  is  without  authority  beyond 
its  domain. 

Supremacy,  however,  does  not  signify  inde¬ 
pendence,  nor  is  this  necessarily  involved  in  it. 
One  may  be  clothed  with  the  authority  to  do  a 
thing,  but  whether  he  has  the  power  and  means 
necessary  for  its  doing,  is  another  question.  When 
we  maintain  that  the  State  is  supreme  in  au¬ 
thority  within  its  own  province,  we  must  deny  its 
absolute  independence.  No  reference  is  here  had 
to  its  immediate  dependence  on  divine  Providence. 
That  we  consider  as  a  matter  beyond  all  doubt 
true,  and  as  accepted  among  all  who  hold  belief  in 
the  divine  order  of  things;  as  to  others  it  were 
wholly  a  loss  of  time  and  waste  of  energy  to  at¬ 
tempt  its  demonstration.  What  we  here  mean, 
and  intend  to  show,  is,  that  the  State  is  dependent 
upon  factors  other  than  its  own  for  powers  which 
it  needs  but  is  unable  of  itself  to  produce.  W e 
have  seen  that  the  modus  operandi  of  the  State  is, 
and  can  be  no  other  than,  the  strictly  legal.  It 
accomplishes  its  purposes  only  and  altogether  by 
the  instrumentality  of  laws  and  their  enforcement. 
But  the  law  cannot  reach  man  in  every  respect; 
nay,  as  to  the  inner,  the  real ,  man  it  is  almost  pow¬ 
erless.  It  is  able,  in  a  great  measure,  to  direct  and 
control  the  outward  expression  of  the  inner  man, 
but  the  inner  and  spiritual  self  is  wholly  beyond 
its  reach.  A  fear  of  punishment  it  is  indeed  able 


84 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


to  incite,  and  thus  prevent  the  execution  of  crime  to 
some  extent;  but  it  is  unable  to  create  a  hatred  of 
crime  and  so  truly  prevent  its  perpetration  both  in 
the  heart  and  by  the  hand.  By  means  of  rewards 
it  can  secure  the  outward  doing  of  good,  but  it  can¬ 
not  thereby  instill  a  pure  and  efficient  love  for  the 
good.  “The  law,  even  in  its  best  form,  can  address 
itself  to  the  existing  good  will  of  man,  but  as  to 
the  opposing  will  (' Wider willen)  it  is  powerless. 
It  can  only  lay  hold  of  the  will  in  its  actual  mani¬ 
festations  by  means  of  commands  and  promises — 
punishing  the  evil  and  rewarding  the  good. — The 
State  must  indeed  appeal  to  the  good  sense  and 
judgment  of  man  as  the  motive  power  of  all  moral 
and  just  deportment — but  it  cannot  produce  that 
good  sense  and  judgment.”  (Dr,  J.  T .  Beck,  Kirche 
und  Staat.  p.  37). 

Morality,  in  so  far  as  it  includes  a  sense  of  just 
conduct  between  man  and  man  and  a  love  of  peace 
and  order,  is  indispensable  both  to  the  conception 
and  enactment  of  good  laws  and  for  their  judicious 
support  and  execution.  Whence  is  this  moral 
sense  which  itself  conditions  the  State  and  all  its 
laws,  and  therefore  must  exist  independent  of  it 
and  prior  to  it — whence  is  it  to  proceed?  You  say, 
from  the  hearts  of  the  people;  and  you  say  well  if 
— it  is  there  and  there  in  that  purity,  power  and 
measure  in  which  the  State  has  need  of  it.  Just 
here  is  where  the  trouble  sets  in,  however.  The 
moral  sense,  in  so  far  as  it  is  naturally  inherent  in 
humanity,  is  most  assuredly  very  indifferent  in 
kind  and  small  in  measure.  If  we  were  to  praise 
it  at  all  and  give  its  just  estimate,  we  would  know 


§4. 


ITS  SPHERE  OF  JURISDICTION. 


85 


of  no  more  appropriate  encomium  than  that  passed 
by  a  country  lad  upon  the  quality  and  quantity  of 
the  butter  on  his  city  cousin’s  table:  “’Tis  very 
good,  what  there  is  of  it!” — and,  “ There’s  plenty  of 
it,  such  as  it  is!”  Moreover,  this  poor  article  of  mo¬ 
rality  which  we  bring  with  us  into  the  world  is — 
like  the  butter  named — in  constant  danger  of  far¬ 
ther  corruption  and  other  changes.  The  fact  is, 
that,  were  all  men  morally  good  and  wise,  there 
would  be  little  or  no  interference  by  man  with 
man’s  enjoyment  of  his  rights  and  liberties  and 
with  the  possession  and  use  of  his  property,  and 
hence  little  or  no  need  of  a  protecting  body.  Every 
man  would  then  be  his  own  law-giver,  lawyer, 
judge  and  master.  But  unfortunately  for  man,  and 
fortunately  for  lawyers  and  politicians,  such  are 
not  the  facts  in  the  case.  Man,  the  moral  being, 
is  rather  immoral  and  therefore  ever  prone  to  do 
ill  to  his  fellow  man.  The  very  necessity  of  gov¬ 
ernments  arises  chiefly  from  the  fact  of  human  de¬ 
pravity;  and  he  who  denies  the  fact  of  the  latter 
may  as  well  deny  the  rightful  existence  of  the  for¬ 
mer,  and  does,  the  way  they  are  at  present  con¬ 
stituted. 

On  the  other  hand,  man’s  moral  nature  is 
capable  of  purification  and  improvement.  Among 
others,  this  can  take  place,  and  should  take  place, 
at  the  mother’s  knee,  in  the  family,  the  school-room 
and  in  the  pew.  The  State  as  such  cannot  do  it; 
neither  has  it  the  call  nor  the  means  to  do  this  work. 
Man  can  be  made  just  and  good  only  by  spiritual  in¬ 
struction  and  discipline.  Since  even  the  divine  law , 
as  distinguished  from  the  Gospel,  cannot  accom- 


86 


THE  STATE. 


I. 


plish  this  change  of  heart,  much  less  can  human 
and  civil  law.  Mere  legislation  and  police-depart¬ 
ments,  be  they  never  so  perfect,  can  for  this  reason 
not  suffice  to  secure  the  safety  of  the  State  and  the 
prosperous  accomplishment  of  its  mission.  For  its 
chief  constituent  element  it  must  rely  upon  other 
forces  and  bodies.  It  is  not  furnished  with  those 
means  which  alone  can  correct  moral  corruption 
and  produce,  strengthen  and  preserve  good  morals. 
These  means  God  has  withheld  from  the  State  and 
from  State-control ;  but  He  has  bestowed  them, 
and  bestowed  them  for  general  administration,  on 
another  body — the  Church. 


88 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


II.  THE  CHURCH. 


5.  RELIGION,  AND  RELIGIOUS  RIGHTS  AND  DU¬ 
TIES,  AS  LEADING  TO  THE  ESTABLISHMENT 
OF  THE  CHURCH. 


Mankind  and  religion  have  simultaneously 
come  into  the  world.  Humanity  and  religion  we 
hold  to  be  inseparable.  There  are  those  who  deny 
the  existence  of  a  supreme,  intelligent  Being. 
These  know  not  what  they  say;  otherwise  they 
could  not  so  glory  in  their  own  shame.  One  thing 
have  we  repeatedly  observed  in  the  atheist :  he  is 
full  of  earnest — of  the  earnest  of  hatred  and  dread. 
What  an  absurdity,  oh  ye  men  of  “  superior  knowl¬ 
edge  ”  and  of  “  extra  high  culture,”  constantly  to 
stand  in  dread  of  “  a  mere  superstitious  idea  ”  and 
bitterly  to  make  war  upon  “an  absolute  noth¬ 
ingness!”  The  truth  is:  you  have  let  go  your 
hold  on  God,  but  God  has  not  let  go  His  hold  on 
you,  and  never  will.  His  hands  lie  heavily  on 
you;  and  the  weight  of  it  makes  you  writhe.  The 
thought  of  God  you  can  never  banish  from  your 
minds;  flee  whither  you  will,  do  what  you  will, 
that  is  ever  present,  even  as,  and  because,  God 
Himself  is  ever  present.  And  this  thought  you 
feel  to  be  a  power  and  a  weight  which  you  fain 
would  shake  off,  but  you  cannot. 


89 


RELIGION,  ITS  RIGHTS,  ETC. 


And  how  strange  —  considering  your  “  un¬ 
bounded  wisdom” — that  the  mere  thought  of  what 
you  professedly  know  to  be  an  absolute  nothing 
should  thus  hold  you  in  thralldom  and  threaten 
every  moment  to  crush  you !  And  here  another  ab¬ 
surdity.  “The  impious”— says  the  eloquent  Mas¬ 
sillon — “are  struck  with  the  glory  of  princes  and 
conquerors  that  found  the  little  empires  of  this 
earth;  and  they  do  not” — they  say — “feel  the  om¬ 
nipotence  of  that  hand  which  laid  the  foundations 
of  the  universe.  They  admire  the  skill  and  in¬ 
dustry  of  workmen,  who  erect  those  places  which  a 
storm  may  blow  down;  and  they  will  not  acknowl¬ 
edge  wisdom  in  the  arrangement  of  that  infinitely 
more  superb  work  the  revolutions  of  ages  have  re¬ 
spected,  and  must  continue  to  respect  till  He  who 
made  it  shall  will  it  to  pass  away.  In  vain,  how¬ 
ever,  do  they  boast  that  they  do  not  see  God;  it  is 
because  they  seek  Him,  who  is  perfect  holiness,  in  a 
heart  that  is  depraved  by  its  passions.  But  they 
have  only  to  look  out  from  themselves,  and  they 
will  find  Him  evervwhere:  the  whole  earth  will 

%j 

show  them  its  Maker;  and  if  they  refuse  still  their 
assent,  their  own  corrupted  hearts  will  be  the  only 
thing  in  the  universe  which  does  not  proclaim  the 
author  of  its  being.”  Than  the  blindness  of  such 
creatures,  far  more  truthful  to  the  nature  within 
us  is  the  out-cry  of  Augustin  :  “Thou  hast  created 
us  for  Thyself,  and  our  hearts  are  restless  in  the 
world,  and  can  find  no  repose  until  they  rest  in 
Thee,  0  Lord !  ” 

Be  it  that,  as  a  result  of  utter  demoralization, 
some  human  individuals  have  become  brutes,  and 

4* 


90 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


worse  than  brutes,  from  a  religious  point  of  view;  in 
all  the  world’s  history  no  people  is  found  void  of  all 
religious  belief.  Comparative  religion  of  late  claims 
to  hold  in  hand  testimony  showing  that  among 
some  tribes  of  surviving  savages  there  is  no  trace 
of  religious  feelings  and  observances.  Suppose 
these  evidences  sufficient — which  we  doubt — to  es¬ 
tablish  the  anomaly,  it  would  only  go  to  show  that 
there  are  two  ways  leading  to  atheism :  the  one  by 
savage  ignorance,  the  other  by  self-conceited  wis¬ 
dom  ;  and  show  farther,  that  the  exception  proves 
the  rule,  also  in  this  case. 

What  is  remarkable  in  all  the  religious  systems 
of  the  world,  even  down  to  the  lowest,  is  the  belief 
in  a  personal  deity  or  deities.  Never  are  these  con¬ 
ceived  as  things,  but  always  as  beings  personal. 
Even  Buddhism — that  despicable  prototype  of  our 
own  contemptible  agnosticism — constitutes  no  ex¬ 
ception.  Buddha,  says  Max  Mueller,  “who  had 
left  no  place  in  the  whole  universe  for  a  Divine 
Being  was  deified  himself  by  the  multitudes,  who 
wanted  a  person  whom  they  could  worship,  a  king 
whom  they  might  invoke,  a  friend  before  whom 
they  could  pour  out  their  griefs.”*  “Even  here, 
therefore,  in  the  very  home  of  what  seems  a  formal 
atheism,  we  have  the  same  witness  of  the  soul  of 
man  to  a  Personal  Power — something  different  from 
either  a  mere  law  and  an  universal  all-pervading 
Spirit.  Although  with  stammering  lips  and  falter¬ 
ing  tongue,  we  call  even  Buddhism  to  join  the  great 
cloud  of  witnesses  by  whose  direct  testimony  the 
belief  in  God  is  established. ”f 

*Chips  from  a  German  Workshop,  I.,  p.  254. 

tCanon  Barry,  Nat.  Theol.,  p.  24. 


91 


RELIGION,  ITS  RIGHTS,  ETC. 


Plutarch  says:  “  You  may  find  States  without 
walls,  without  laws,  without  coins,  without  litera¬ 
ture  :  but  a  people  without  God,  without  prayer, 
without  religious  exercises  and  sacrifices  no  one 
has  ever  found.  It  is  easier  to  build  up  a  city  with¬ 
out  ground  than  that  a  State  should  preserve  itself 
without  faith  in  the  gods.  God  is  the  bond  of 
union  in  all  society  and  the  support  of  all  legisla¬ 
tion.”  (Advers.  Colotem  Epicureum  c.  31).  The 
idea,  the  truth,  here  expressed  by  the  old  Greek — 
himself  at  one  time  a  Roman — how  very  true.  “  My 
first  duty” — says  a  modern  Roman,  i.  e.,  the  fatal¬ 
istic  Napoleon — “  is  to  prevent  the  corruption  of 
the  morals  of  my  people.  For  atheism  is  the  annihil¬ 
ation  of  moruls)  if  not  in  the  individual,  at  least  in 
the  nations.”  So  closely  is  the  moral  sentiment 
interlinked  with,  yea  essentially  a  part  of,  religion 
that  the  denial  of  man  as  naturally  a  religious  be¬ 
ing  involves  the  denial  of  his  moral  nature.  The 
atheist  is,  and  is  by  his  own  confession,  an  immoral 
being;  and  here  for  once  he  speaks  the  truth,  no 
doubt  without  intending  it.  If  the  human  ego  is — 
as  they  say  the  supreme  being,  where  is  man  to 
find  a  firm  basis  either  for  the  moral  sensibility  or 
for  the  rule  of  its  application  ?  Objective  right  and 
wrong  were,  on  this  supposition,  an  impossibility. 
But  the  objective  is  the  foundation  and  norm  of 
every  moral  idea ;  take  it  away,  and  every  system 
of  morality  must  fall  to  the  ground.  It  is  the  su¬ 
preme  Being  who  decides  what  is  good  and  what  is 
bad.  Is  man  himself  that  high  authority,  then  is 
the  bad  the  good  and  the  good  the  bad  when,  and 
just  because,  he  wills  it  so.  View  it  as  we  may, 


92 


THE  CHURCH, 


II. 


man’s  moral  and  religious  nature  demands  the  ex¬ 
istence  of  a  Being  higher  and  more  consistent  than 
is  man  himself ;  and  it  testifies  to  His  reality  and 
moral  goodness. 

“  In  whatever  direction  we  look,  the  fact  meets 
us  that,  in  the  mirror  of  man’s  own  nature  as  in 
that  of  the  world,  he  encounters  a  power  which  is 
higher  than  himself  and  the  world — a  power  which 
binds  him  and  the  world,  which  elevates  him  by 
this  very  restraint  above  himself  as  well  as  above 
the  world,  and  holds  out  to  him,  as  the  aim  of  life,  a 
communion,  whose  traces  he  finds  in  himself  and 
in  the  world.”  (Harless  Syst.  §  7).  In  nature  man 
sees  displayed  a  superhuman  power,  be  it  to  create 
or  to  destroy;  he  beholds  a  wisdom — not  simply  an 
order — which  he  cannot  fathom ;  he  perceives,  and 
himself  enjoj^s,  a  lavish  kindness  that  makes  his 
heart  go  out  in  song,  and  yet  again  a  wrath  that 
makes  it  quake  with  fear.  Then  looking  within 
himself  he  finds  “his  thoughts  the  meanwhile  ac¬ 
cusing,  or  else  excusing  one  another.”  All  these 
phenomena,  constantly  open  before  him,  are  so 
many  evidences  of  the  existence  of  a  Power,  yea  of 
an  intelligent  and  moral  Being,  other  and  infinitely 
greater  than  himself. 

This  testimony,  at  least,  was  present  to  the 
heathen  world.  And  the  heathens  doubted  not  but 
believed ;  they  all  believed,  religiously  believed  and 
worshiped  the  great  Power  they  saw  so  mysteri¬ 
ously  yet  distinctly  manifesting  itself.  Whatever 
the  forms,  whatever  the  distinctions,  and  whatever 
the  errors  may  have  been  in  the  various  creeds  of 
the  pagan  religions,  one  truth  is  fundamental  and 


93 


§  5.  RELIGION,  ITS  RIGHTS,  ETC. 


common  to  them  all — they  all  sought  to  know  and 
intended  to  worship  the  “ unknown  God.”  Besides, 
their  united  experiences  demonstrate  beyond  all 
doubt  that  the  religious  disposition  is  natural  and 
universal  and  therefore  characteristic  of  humanity. 

The  nations  of  the  past  have  demonstrated  re¬ 
ligion  to  be  a  tremendous  power,  either  for  good  or 
for  bad.  It  is  wholesome  or  pernicious  in  its  influ¬ 
ence  :  wholesome,  when  it  comprehends  the  truth 
and  when  this  truth  is  rightly  applied ;  pernicious, 
when  it  embraces  error,  or  when  the  truth  is 
abused.  True,  the  beliefs  of  heathendom,  from  a 
Christian  point  of  view,  were  almost  throughout 
their  whole  line  of  thought  nothing  more  than  so 
many  superstitious  ideas.  As  a  matter  of  course, 
the  cultus  conformed  itself  to  the  creed,  and  was  in 
some  things  incredibly  absurd,  in  others,  shock¬ 
ingly  cruel.  Notwithstanding  all  this,  the  wor¬ 
shipers  were  sincere.  Think  of  the  sacrifices,  of 
the  self-inflicted  castigations,  of  their  zeal  in  propa¬ 
gating  and  defending  their  tenets :  and  their  hon¬ 
esty  of  conviction  and  intention  you  can  not 
doubt.  Though  in  themselves  all  these  religions 
were  erroneous,  though  as  to  the  real  purpose  of 
religion  they  were  vain,  notwithstanding  this  they 
were  not  altogether  useless.  The  fundamental 
idea  always  was  the  belief  in  a  higher  being,  or 
powers,  loving  and  rewarding  the  good,  hating  and 
punishing  the  evil.  And  thus  they  were  all  per¬ 
vaded  by  that  conservative  element  which  in  a 
manner  quickens,  preserves  and  strengthens  that 
common  moral  sentiment  which  binds  a  people  to¬ 
gether  and  constrains  them  to  respect  their  mutual 


94 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


rights.  And  there  is,  among  some  others,  another 
important  purpose  served  by  these  systems,  to  wit : 
they  demonstrate  the  impossibility  of  knowing  the 
true  God  by  mere  human  reason  or  any  other  nat¬ 
ural  energy.  Paganism  in  all  its  forms  was  the  re¬ 
ligion  of  inquiry  ;  the  gentiles  sought  the  true  God, 
but  they  found  Him  not  by  their  own  powers. 

The  one,  true,  personal,  almighty,  holy  and 
merciful  God  cannot  be  known  except  by  special 
revelation.  It  is  the  same  God  who  manifests 
Himself  in  the  book  of  nature  and  in  the  Bible ; 
but  the  manifestations  are  different  in  kind  and 
degree.  The  one  is  His  work,  the  other  His  word. 
The  one  speaks  after  the  manner  of  things ;  the 
other  in  the  language  of  man.  Loud  and  terrific 
is  the  voice  of  nature  in  the  fall  of  waters,  in  the 
troubled  winds,  in  the  pealing  thunder,  in  the 
sweeping  flames ;  but  how  feeble  when  compared 
with  that  other  voice  which,  going  forth  from  Sinai 
into  all  the  world,  to  this  very  day  continues  to 
drive  into  the  hearts  of  men  a  dread  as  of  eternal 
death !  Soothing  and  delightful,  indeed,  is  the 
language  addressed  to  us  in  the  varied  beauty  and 
sweetness  of  creation ;  and  yet  it  utterly  fails  to 
quiet  the  restless  spirit  and  to  comfort  the  sorrow¬ 
ing  soul :  rest  and  gladness  of  heart  are  found  alone 
in  that  word  which  points  us  to  Bethlehem  and 
Golgotha !  So  inadequate  is  the  revelation  of 
things  divine  by  nature,  that  it  fails  to  teach  man¬ 
kind  even  the  rudimentary  truths  of  true  religion. 
The  heathens  of  the  past,  for  example,  never  even 
knew  God  as  the  Creator ;  and  the  heathens  of  to¬ 
day,  who  will  not  read  in  .  any  light  other  than  that 


95 


.§  5.  RELIGION,  ITS  RIGHTS,  ETC. 


of  nature,  are  still  without  a  Creator.  Notwith¬ 
standing  any  child  on  the  street  could  tell  them, 
and  tell  them  truly  :  they  to  this  day  know  not 
whence  the  world  has  come — and  it  is  said  to  be  a 
mark  of  wisdom  not  to  know  !  The  heathens  felt 
and  feared  .the  anger  of  God  ;  but  sin,  the  real  cause 
of  anger  divine,  they  never  rightly  comprehended. 
They  understood  not  the  offending  nature  of  sin 
because  they  had  no  conception  of  God  as  the  Holy 
One.  Nature  and  reason  were  powerless  to  teach 
them  better;  but  we  have  in  every  way  a  better 
book  of  instruction,  and  a  greater  power  to  convict 
us,  in  these  things. 

In  the  Bible,  facts  are  clearly  stated,  truths  are 
clearly  taught ;  and  in  all  its  statements  and  teach¬ 
ings  there  is  a  light  that  enlightens  every  mind 
and  a  power  that  conquers  every  will,  except  the 
mind  and  will  of  such  as  obstinately  resist  the 
truth  when  brought  to  them.  The  inspired  word 
is  the  repository  of  religious  truth ;  and  its  meas¬ 
ure  is  full,  complete,  and  sufficient  to  do  the  work 
it  is  sent  to  accomplish.  Jehovah,  Himself  the 
speaker,  there  speaks  to  us  of  His  eternal  triune 
Essence  and  of  His  wonderful  attributes ;  then  of 
His  will  to  us  ward  as  a  will  all-holy  and  right¬ 
eous,  and  as  a  will  merciful  and  kind ;  also  of  His 
work  in  the  beginning  of  time,  and  of  His  work  in 
the  fulness  of  time.  Throughout  the  whole  He 
points  away  from  time  to  eternity — to  an  eternity 
of  darkness,  death  and  damnation,  but  to  an  eter¬ 
nity  also  of  light,  life  and  joy  unspeakable  and  full 
of  glory.  But  the  center  of  all  is  Christ ,  God  incar¬ 
nate,  the  God-Man.  By  Him  were  all  things  made; 


96 


THE  CHURCH, 


II. 


by  Him  were  all  men  redeemed ;  to  Him  are  all  to 
be  sanctified ;  and  all  who  are  sanctified  are  sancti¬ 
fied  through  Him.  To  Him  is  given  all  power  in 
heaven  and  in  earth;  He  is  the  Judge  supreme, 
and  of  all;  He  reigns  in  glory  everlasting;  and 
with  Him  shall  reign  all  who  have,  by  faith,  be¬ 
come  His  own.  In  a  word :  the  Bible  is  the  book 
of  the  Christian  religion — of  our  religion. 

Christianity  is  revealed;  it  is  a  divine  gift  di¬ 
vinely  bestowed;  it  is  in  itself  something  wholly 
divine.  It  is  in  part  an  idea,  but  an  idea  entirely 
conceived  by  the  mind  of  God.  Take  any  of  its 
peculiar  truths,  and  you  may  be  able  to  point  to 
the  man  to  whom  it  was  given,  but  never  to  the 
man  who  originated  it.  The  Christian  doctrines 
of  the  personality  and  perfection  of  the  supreme 
Being,  of  creation  and  providence,  of  man’s  condi¬ 
tion  and  destiny,  of  the  Redeemer  and  of  redemp¬ 
tion,  of  the  Spirit  and  of  sanctification — all  are  so 
many  truths  which  in  their  very  nature  wholly 
transcend  all  the  powers  of  natural  reason  and  the 
highest  philosophy  this  has  been  able  to  produce 
— yea,  and  ever  will  produce.  So  manifest  is  this 
fact  that,  because  above  all  reason,  the  distinctively 
Christian  truths  have  time  and  again  been  de¬ 
clared  as  contrary  to  all  reason.  It  is  one  of  the 
many  weak  points  of  “the  pure  reason/’  as  it 
has  ostentatiously  called  itself,  to  set  down  every 
thought  not  its  own,  and  which  it  cannot  master, 
as  simply  foolish.  But  Christianity  is  not,  and 
does  not  at  all  account  of  itself,  as  a  thing  unrea¬ 
sonable.  It  is  the  highest  wisdom;  but  it  is  from 
above.  Every  one  in  real  possession  of  its  truths, 


5.  RELIGION,  ITS  RIGHTS,  ETC.  97 


in  possessing  them,  declares:  “  Thus  saith  the 
Lord.”  It  is  intended  for  the  whole  man;  and  to 
the  whole  man  it  addresses  itself.  It  directs  itself 
chiefly  to  the  heart;  but  also  to  the  mind.  It  so¬ 
licits  belief,  but  desires  also  understanding.  In 
every  case  does  it  seek  to  win  both,  the  good-will 
of  the  heart  and  the  service  of  the  mind  and  body ; 
but  in  no  case  will  it  allow  either  the  one  or  the 
other  to  dominate  over  itself. 

Christianity  is  a  power  gone  forth  from  heaven 
to  conquer  all  things,  but  to  be  conquered  by 
none.  It  wants  to  subjugate  man,  but  for  no 
other  purpose  than  to  make  him  truly  free. 
Strange  as  it  may  seem :  it  smites  in  order  to  heal, 
it  afflicts  in  order  to  lead  to  joy,  it  humbleth  in 
order  to  exalt;  in  order  to  acquit  it  must  first  con¬ 
demn,  to  make  us  the  first  of  God’s  creatures  it 
first  convicts  us  of  being  the  least.  Such  are 
not  things  of  man’s  invention;  they  cannot  be 
thoughts  and  ways  humanly  conceived.  Beyond 
our  comprehension,  how  can  they  be  of  our  find¬ 
ing  out  ?  And  yet,  that  these  things  are  true,  and 
have  all  the  power  and  all  the  reasonableness  of 
truth,  of  divine  truth — than  this,  nothing  on  earth 
is  better  attested.  It  comes  with  the  claim  of  be¬ 
ing  divine  truth  and  power,  and  the  irrefutable  tes¬ 
timony  of  being  everything  it  claims  to  be,  to  do 
and  to  give,  it  has  planted  in  the  hearts  of  thou¬ 
sands  upon  thousands  receiving  it,  and  set  up 
against  thousands  upon  thousands  rejecting  it. 
Its  conflicts  and  its  victories  are  so  many  that 
they  cannot  be  numbered.  We  simply  refer  to  its 

engagements  with  Judaism  in  the  beginning  of  its 
5 


98 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


era;  with  the  paganism  of  Greece  and  Rome;  with 
the  New-Platonic  philosophy  as  led  by  a  Celsus, 
Porphyry  and  Hierocles;  then  with  the  Barbarism 
of  the  North;  with  Mohammedanism;  and  lastly 
with  rationalism,  and  with  science  falsely  so  called 
— past  and  present.  From  all  these  its  conflicts  it 
has  come  forth,  never  conquered,  mostly  victori¬ 
ous,  and  always  with  a  full  vindication  of  itself  as 
the  holy  and  gracious  truth  and  power  of  God. 

Were  Christianity  a  mere  idea,  even  an  idea 
of  God,  it  could  not  have  such  power.  But  it  is 
more  than  a  great  thought  of  God ;  it  is  an  eter¬ 
nal  and  divine  plan  purposing  facts  and  demand¬ 
ing  action.  It  is  a  plan  of  God  realized,  almost 
fully ;  and  what  few  of  the  promises  still  await 
fulfillment,  in  due  season  will  be  accomplished. 
Christianity  is  founded  not  upon  thoughts  and 
theories  but  upon  facts.  It  does  not  think  things, 
and  speak  of  things,  which  might  be  but  are  not. 
No,  it  deals  with  realities  only,  and  then  with  the 
statement  of  the  truth  concerning  them.  With 
abstract  thoughts  and  speculations  it  has  nothing 
to  do  other  than  to  discard  them  as  matters  for¬ 
eign  to  itself.  Its  central  truths,  the  incarnation 
of  God  and  mankind  by  Him  redeemed,  were  ideas 
of  divine  conception,  but  now  are  become  facts 
by  divine  accomplishment.  Were  a  Christian  to 
think  that  these  things  might  be  facts  but  are 
only  ideas,  what  a  revolution  there  would  be  in 
his  convictions,  in  his  consciousness,  in  his  affec¬ 
tions  and  feelings,  in  his  fears  and  hopes,  in  his 
words  and  actions !  Then  would  the  Christian 
man  be  an  impossibility.  For  it  is  the  God-given 


RELIGION,  ITS  RIGHTS,  ETC. 


99 


5. 


confidence,  that  the  things  he  believes  are  true  and 
real,  which  makes  him  what  he  is  and  moves  him 
to  act  as  he  does  in  this  life.  The  power  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  rests  in  the  reality  of  the  things  which  it 
proclaims. 

Objectively  considered,  Christianity  is  the  only 
true,  the  one  absolute,  the  perfect  religion.  There 
is  no  other  true  religion ;  and  whatever  truths 
the  many  false  forms  of  beliefs  may  contain,  they 
are  surely  found  in  the  Christian  religion  like¬ 
wise.  It  has  to  do  with  facts,  mostly  with  the 
wonderful  deeds  of  God’s  power,  holiness,  justice, 
and  grace ;  and  these  facts  are  divinely  mediated, 
interpreted,  and  applied.  Errors  can  only  be  sub¬ 
jective,  that  is,  in  our  understanding  and  applica¬ 
tion  of  revealed  truth.  Christianity  itself  is  a 
fully  rounded  and  perfect  sphere  of  truths;  and  in 
this  view  of  it,  it  is  incapable  of  change,  develop¬ 
ment  and  progress.  When  we  speak  of  its  pro¬ 
gress  we  can  only  mean,  if  at  all  we  speak  intelli¬ 
gently,  either  that  such  come  into  possession  of  it 
as  never  before  have  received  it,  or  that  others 
receive  it  more  clearly  and  fully  than  thus  far 
they  have  enjoyed  it.  Progress  is  not  in  the  truth 
but  in  its  growing  and  continued  conquest  over 
the  hearts  of  men.  When  error  is  made  to  give 
place  to  truth,  darkness  to  tight,  doubt  to  confi¬ 
dence,  slavish  fear  to  filial  love,  and  sin  to  holi¬ 
ness,  then  is  there  spiritual  growth  and  Christian 
progress.  And  this  is  not  mainly  conditioned  by 
mental  development,  nor  by  an  advance  in  the  arts 
and  sciences,  in  civilization  and  culture,  as  we  are 
want  to  understand  these  things.  The  truths  we 


100 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


speak  of  are  not  only  divinely  revealed ;  they 
must  also  be  divinely  implanted,  nourished,  and 
brought  to  fruition.  A  person  may  have  received 
the  very  best  mental  training,  may  be  the  most 
learned  and  best  cultured  among  his  fellows,  and 
notwithstanding  all  such  acquirements  be  an  in¬ 
fidel.  Christianity  must  be  made  subjective  not 
by  anything  subjective,  but  by  its  own  peculiar 
power.  The  Gospel  of  Christ  is  truth  and  is 
power;  and  in  both  these  features  it  is  divine. 
We  cannot  lay  hold  of  it,  it  must  lay  hold  of  us; 
otherwise  it  can  never  count  us  among  its  spoils. 

The  complaint  is  made  that  Christianity  and 
that  Christians  are  exclusive,  intolerant,  positive, 
and  not  at  all  open  to  compromise.  And  so  they 
are,  but  in  a  spirit  and  manner  their  own.  And 
how  can  they  ever  be  otherwise?  How  can  truth 
be  expected  to  embrace  error,  and  what  part  can 
light  have  with  darkness?  In  things  wherein  the 
mind  and  the  heart  are  divinely  convinced,  how 
can  they  be  expected  to  doubt,  to  opinionate,  to 
brook  the  opposition  of  error  without  a  staunch 
profession  and  defense  of  the  truth  in  answer  to  it? 
How  can  a  man  be  expected  to  be  indifferent  or 
in  the  least  to  yield  in  matters  whereon  he  be¬ 
lieves  his  everlasting  happiness  to  be  dependent? 
Indeed,  the  charge  of  exclusiveness  and  bigotry 
comes  with  a  bad  grace  in  this  case,  inasmuch  as  it 
is  raised  by  those  who  are  most  loud  in  the  cry  that 
u  every  man  has  a  right  to  his  own  opinion.”  If 
so,  we  meekly  inquire :  why  is  not  a  Christian  to 
have  a  right  to  his  faith,  and  to  his  free  and  manly 
confession  of  it  ?  While  we  must  condemn  all  ar- 


§5. 


101 


RELIGION,  ITS  RIGHTS,  ETC. 


rogance,  over-confidence  and  dogmatism  in  matters 
of  doubt  and  mere  opinion,  as  selfish  and  hurtful 
to  the  cause  of  the  truth,  we  cannot  but  respect  a 
man  who  boldly  and  firmly  holds  to  his  convic¬ 
tions.  Even  when  I  consider  his  convictions  er¬ 
roneous,  I  must  accord  him  the  honor  due  him  as 
a  man  of  principle  and  character.  But,  excepting 
perhaps  the  field  of  the  physical  sciences,  objec¬ 
tive  truth  and  its  embrace  by  an  unswerving  faith 
appear  to  have  become  things  discreditable  ;  subjec¬ 
tivism  and  doubt  are  become  fashionable,  and  are 
in  many  ways  the  curse  of  our  age.  If  you  desire 
to  be  numbered  with  the  wise,  doubt  Moses  and 
the  prophets,  and  you  have  your  desire;  question 
the  pronouncements  of  a  Darwin,  a  Haeckel,  a 
Strauss,  a  Spencer,  and  you  will  surely  be  ac¬ 
counted  a  fool. 

So  long  as  the  truths  and  facts  are  not  ascer¬ 
tained  and  apprehended,  doubt  is  in  order,  and 
may  then  prove  itself  quite  serviceable  as  an  in¬ 
centive  to  inquiry  and  research  ;  but  when  once 
the  truth  is  found,  doubt  must  give  way  to  knowl¬ 
edge  and  faith.  Then  it  is  out  of  place;  and  if 
adhered  to,  it  will  render  useless  the  work  it  has 
instigated  and  make  the  truth  found  ineffective. 

*  True,  human  fallibility  is  universal;  but  that 
means  that  every  one  is  liable  to  err  and  that  he 
may  err  concerning  everything ;  it  does  not  mean 
that  he  necessarily  must  err,  nor  that  he  always  does. 
The  most  gloomy  and  pernicious  pessimistic  notion 
ever  advanced  concerning  humanity  is  this,  that 
man  can  in  no  way  become  certain  of  anything; 


102 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


that  he  must  in  all  things  always  doubt  and  waver; 
that  he  can  have  no  grounds  for  his  fears  and  for  his 
hopes  other  than  those  of  probabilities  and  uncer¬ 
tainties.  Above  all  is  this  held  to  be  the  case  in 
the  sphere  of  morals  and  religion.  As  for  us,  we 
beg  leave  to  apply  this  notion  to  this  notion  itself 
and  so  set  it  aside  as  the  most  doubtful  and  silly 
idea  ever  put  forth.  Christianity  has  to  do  only 
with  objective  truths  concerning  realities.  At 
least,  thus  every  true  Christian  believes;  and  so 
believing  he  holds  fast  to  the  truths  given  and  ex¬ 
cludes  everything  in  conflict  with  his  faith  as  in 
conflict  with  the  truth,  and  with  the  true  interests 
of  himself  and  of  mankind.  From  its  very  na¬ 
ture,  Christianity  can  never  compromise  with  error, 
never  countenance  sin ;  but  in  other  things  and  re¬ 
lations,  it  is  ever  ready  to  yield  and  accommodate 
itself  to  the  people  it  is  designed  to  bless.  It  is 
bound  to  no  particular  time,  or  country,  or  cus¬ 
toms,  or  forms  of  governments,  or  language,  etc. 
It  is,  in  these  respects,  truly  universal  or  catholic — 
it  is  the  religion  of  Him  “  in  whom  all  the  nations 
of  the  earth  shall  be  blest.” 

A  greater,  more  thoroughly  revolutionizing 
and  highly  beneficial  force  than  is  the  power  of 
the  Christian  religion  there  is  none.  There  is  none 
that  can  so  change,  expand,  fill,  quicken,  cheer, 
move  and  control  the  human  heart — and  all  for  the 
better.  It  has  been  counterfeited,  it  has  been  mis¬ 
applied  and  abused;  and  hence  it  may  appear  to 
have  done  harm.  The  truth  is,  however,  that  it  has 
never  done  anything  but  what  is  good  for  man  and 
for  the  human  race.  To  deny  this,  one  must  deny 


103 


5.  RELIGION,  ITS  RIGHTS,  ETC. 


history.  We  admit  that  it  has  been  corrupted  at 
times  and  places,  even  as  is  still  done;  and  the 
spurious  article  has  been  the  cause  of  much  mis¬ 
chief,  yea,  of  things  criminal.  We  admit  farther 
that,  even  in  its  purity,  it  has  at  times  been  forced 
to  do  injury  either  by  reason  of  blind  zeal  on  the 
part  of  its  friends  or  when  used  as  a  covering  and 
instrument  by  men  of  evil  design.  These  facts 
have  misled  some  to  look  upon  it  with  suspicion 
and  to  deny  its  excellence  and  utility ;  but  with¬ 
out  reason.  People  who  are  unable  or  unwilling 
to  distinguish  between  the  genuine  and  the  false, 
between  use  and  abuse,  have  no  ability  and  there¬ 
fore  no  business  to  form  and  pronounce  judgments. 
Nevertheless  it  is  done ;  Christianity  is  misunder¬ 
stood,  misjudged,  assailed  and  wronged.  Over 
against  this  and  all  opposition  it  must  be  defended. 

Christianity  affects  every  thing  within  its 
reach.  It  lays  hold  of  the  entire  man.  It  en¬ 
lightens  his  mind,  converts  his  will,  and  purifies 
his  heart  with  all  its  powers  and  passions.  As  a 
new  life-power  it  changes  the  human  nature  in  all 
its  moral  and  religious  dispositions;  it  changes 
and  renews,  but  it  does  not  destroy.  By  it  the 
mind  is  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  spiritual 
ignorance  and  set  free  to  receive,  and  to  be  enriched 
in,  all  true  knowledge.  The  will  is  turned  from 
things  evil  and  hurtful  to  things  good  and  sal¬ 
utary;  and  thus  renewed  and  invigorated,  it  deter¬ 
mines  to  flee  the  one  and  to  follow  the  other, 
according  to  the  new  light  directing  it.  Things, 
of  which  the  old  heart  has  been  fond  and  fruitful, 
become  distasteful  and  even  infamous  to  the  heart 


104 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


so  regenerated;  and  objects  formerly  feared,  or 
despised,  are  now  loved  and  prized.  A  wonderful 
transformation,  indeed!  And  pervading  the  whole 
there  is  such  a  consciousness  and  certainty  of  its 
reality,  such  supreme  rest  and  joy,  such  an  im¬ 
pulse  for  good  action,  such  a  fullness  of  emotions, 
that  the  heart  must  break  unless  it  find  utterance. 
“  We  cannot  but  speak  the  things  which  we  have 
seen  and  heard."  The  entire  man  has  become  sub¬ 
ject  to  a  new  power,  the  power  of  Christianity,  of 
God,  and  finds  himself  transplanted  into  a  new 
dominion,  the  kingdom  of  Christ  and  of  God.  As  a 
matter  of  course,  this  must  in  some  wav  affect  his 
relation  to  every  person  and  to  every  thing  about 
him ;  it  must  determine  his  entire  conduct  with 
reference  to  the  world  in  which  he  lives  and  moves. 
And  since  the  change  in  the  man  is  for  the  better, 
this  change  in  his  life  can  be  no  other. 

This  change,  however,  is  gradual  and  progress¬ 
ive.  It  is  in  each  case  the  work  of  a  life-time.  The 
work  is  greatly  hindered  and  therefore  arduous;  it 
is  opposed,  and  assumes  the  nature  of  a  struggle. 
In  these  his  labors  and  conflicts,  the  Christian 
needs  assistance;  and  this  he  finds  in  part  among 
those  who  are  undergoing  the  same  renewal,  are 
engaged  in  the  same  work,  are  enlisted  for  the  same 
fight,  bear  the  same  burdens,  and  endure  the  same 
tribulations.  In  these  he  recognizes  children  of 
his  Father’s  house,  citizens  of  his  Savior’s  king¬ 
dom,  laborers  in  h is  Master’s  work-shop — and  all 
alike  away  from  home  in  a  strange  land.  What 
can  be  more  natural  than  that  he  be  drawn  into 
fellowship  and  co-operation  with  them  ?  In  a  word : 


105 


RELIGION,  ITS  RIGHTS,  ETC. 


the  fact  of  a  people  of  God  on  earth  results  in  the 
fact  of  a  kingdom  of  God  on  earth — the  fact  of  the 
Christian  Church.  Christians  of  like  mind,  and  one 
in  spirit,  are  by  this  spiritual  affinity  drawn  to  each 
other  and  held  together.  Having  common  inter¬ 
ests  and  purposes  they  labor  together;  having  com¬ 
mon  needs,  and  being  exposed  to  the  same  dangers, 
they  help  and  stand  by  each  other.  From  within 
and  from  without  they  are  constrained  to  hold  to¬ 
gether  as  one  body — and  that  so  they  do,  is  the  will 
and  work  of  God. 


106 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


§  6.  THE  CHURCH  DEFINED — ITS  REAL  ESSENCE, 

AND  THE  OUTWARD  FORMS  IN  WHICH  IT 

MANIFESTS  ITS  EXISTENCE. 

The  word  “ church”  is  a  term  of  many  mean¬ 
ings.  It  is  used,  ad  libitum ,  to  denote  the  body  of 
religious  people  generally;  then  a  certain  organiza¬ 
tion  of  a  particular  class  of  religious  people,  or  a 
denomination ;  then  also  it  means  a  local  organiza¬ 
tion  of  such  people,  or,  in  other  words,  a  local  con¬ 
gregation  ;  and  again  it  is  made  the  synonym  of  a 
place  of  worship,  and  also  of  the  act  of  worship 
itself.  As  will  appear  farther  on,  it  is  the  Church 
in  a  derivative  and  modified  sense  with  which  we 
have  to  deal  chiefly  in  these  pages.  To  understand 
it,  however,  in  this  sense,  it  will  be  necessary  for 
us  first  to  ascertain  what  it  is  and  signifies  in  its 
primary  sense. 

We  have  noticed  that  Christianity  is,  and  has 
proved  itself,  a  power — an  ethical  and  spiritual 
power  conquering  and  controlling  the  hearts  of 
men.  Now  call  it  a  regenerating  and  paternal,  or 
a  kingly,  or  a  quickening  and  sanctifying  power : 
in  either  case  there  will  result  an  organic  union 
between  those  and  all  those  who  submit  to  it,  and 
also  a  definite  relation  of  these  to  Him  whose  is  the 
power  and  who  operates  it.  In  other  words  :  there 
are  begotten  and  gathered  from  among  men  a  family 
unto  a  common  Father;  or,  a  people  is  conquered 
and  made  the  subjects  of  a  common  kingdom;  or, 
there  are  called  into  being,  and  separated  from  the 


107 


ITS  ESSENCE,  AND  FORMS. 


world  as  having  become  distinct  from  it,  those  who 
are  of  a  kindred  holy  nature,  and  these  are  made 
to  grow  together  into  one  spiritual  body  by  one 
and  the  same  Spirit  who  has  sanctified  them.  You 
may  call  the  Christian  Church  the  household  of  the 
Father,  the  kingdom  of  the  Son,  or,  the  Commun¬ 
ion  of  Saints  by  the  Holy  Spirit — it  is  always  the 
same  thing,  only  considered  and  named  from  a  dif¬ 
ferent  point  of  view.  The  Scriptures  define  the 
ecclesia  of  Christ  as  His  0-ayaa,  His  body.  Of  this 
body,  they  farther  teach,  Christ  is  the  Head  and 
Christians  are  the  members.  In  these  statements 
we  thus  find  given  every  thing  needed  to  arrive  at 
a  clear  conception  of  the  Christian  Church.  It  is  a 
Body,  not  an  institution  merely ;  and  it  is  a  body 
of  people,  but  not  of  all  people ;  it  is  a  body  of 
such  people  only  as  are  Christians,  and  it  is  com¬ 
posed  of  all  such  people,  not  one  excepted ;  lastly, 
it  belongs  to  Christ  —  to  God.  Accordingly,  the 
Christian  Church  is  the  whole  body  of  all  who 
truly  believe  in  Christ.  From  the  definition  so 
given,  many  important  inferences  can  be  deduced, 
which  are  well  worthy  of  consideration,  and  to 
some  extent  relevant  to  the  object  we  have  in 
view,  inasmuch  as  they  will  preclude  a  misconcep¬ 
tion  of  manv  statements  to  follow. 

•/ 

From  the  fact  that  the  Church  is  a  union  of 
people,  it  follows  that  it  is  a  society ;  but  to  stop 
with  this  idea  were  to  come  far  short  of  the  truth. 
It  is  a  society ;  but  it  is  more — more  than  a  simple 
union  and  association  of  rational  beings.  It  is  a 
spiritual  organism.  The  forces  producing  it,  the 
material  constituting  it,  the  means  and  mode  of  its 


108 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


production,  the  structure  itself,  its  life  and  its  man¬ 
ifestations  of  life,  all  point  out  its  organic  nature. 
For  this  reason  it  is,  and  is  called,  a  body — rrti/ia, 
and  its  constituent  parts  are,  and  are  called,  mem¬ 
bers — i.  e.  part  of  an  organic  body.  The 
Church  “  is  not  merely  a  human  society  .  .  but 
more.  It  is  a  creation  of  God — a  work  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Whatever  things  make  the  Church  to  be 
the  Church  are  not  outward  forms  and  manners, 
but  it  is  the  Spirit.  He  is  the  soul  that  fills  it  and 
quickens  it,  and  who  binds  together  all  the  indi¬ 
vidual  members  into  the  oneness  of  the  body.” — 
( Luthhardt ). 

Then,  the  kind  of  this  organism  is  pointed  out 
by  the  words  “ Christian  believer.''  The  life  and 
forces  at  work  here  are  not  natural  but  spiritual ; 
the  Church  is  a  spiritual  body — not  a  plant  or  be¬ 
ing  produced  by  creative  power  as  that  from 
whence  nature  came,  but  a  product  of  ethical  di¬ 
vine  powers  and  operations.  When  it  be  asked  : 
who  is  a  member?  we  can,  in  this  place,  only  say 
in  answer  that  he  is  a  Christian  and  member  who 
is  apprehended  by  Christ  and  in  whom  His  Spirit 
is  generally  predominant.  A  man  who  has  the 
form  of  godliness  but  denies  the  power  thereof  is 
as  far  away  from  the  kingdom  of  God  as  is  he 
who  knows  nothing  about  such  things.  Neither  is 
it  sufficient  to  be  somewhat  influenced  and  affected 
by  divine  powers  in  order  to  be  a  member  of  the 
Church  :  at  least  the  fundamental  truths  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  must  be  known  and  received  by  faith  and 
become  a  life-power  prevalent  in  the  heart.  In 
this  spiritual  body,  Christian  faith  is  the  bond  of 


6. 


ITS  ESSENCE,  AND  FORMS. 


109 


union  between  the  head  .and  the  members,  and 
Christian  love  the  bond  between  members  and 
members.  The  fact  that  throughout  all  times  and 
in  all  places  there  are  people  on  earth  who  are 
bound  to  God  by  this  faith,  and  to  each  other  by 
this  love,  is  the  evidence  of  the  real  and  universal 
character  of  the  Christian  Church  on  earth.  Think 
of  Christians  as  they  exist  in  all  times  and  places, 
and  think  of  their  union  and  communion  with 
God  and  each  other,  and  so  thinking  you  think 
the  Church.  This  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven  and 
of  God  of  which  the  Scriptures  speak.  It  is  the 
Church  in  its  essential,  unchangeable  and  everlast¬ 
ing  reality.  Of  this  Church  Christians  have  from 
the  earliest  times  to  this  day  commonly  confessed 
that  it  is  an  object  not  of  sight  but  of  faith.  “  I 
believe — not  I  see — “a  holy  Christian  Church.” 
Such  are  the  words  of  the  oldest  and  most  gener¬ 
ally  accepted  symbol,  and  which  is  still  in  use. 
Hence,  in  the  sense  in  which  we  have  thus  far  con¬ 
sidered  it  and  spoken  of  it,  the  Church  is  invisible. 
Being  an  essentially  spiritual  body,  it  cannot  be 
other  than  invisible.  But  the  reality  of  its  exist¬ 
ence  is  manifest  in  many  ways:  its  powers  make 
themselves  felt,  the  means  of  its  creation  and  ad¬ 
vancement  are  sensibly  operated,  and  the  word  of 
God  declares  its  reality,  describes  its  nature  and 
foretells  its  destiny — but  the  Church  itself  is  not 
seen.  For  this  reason  the  State  can  have  nothing 
to  do  with  it  as  we  have  here  defined  it.  In  this  it 
is  as  far  beyond  the  reach  of  the  State  as  is  the 
Christian  religion  itself. 

Quite  a  change  of  meaning,  however,  takes 


110 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


place  in  the  term  “Church”  when  from  the  ex¬ 
pression  “The  Christian  Church”  we  pass  over  to 
phrases,  such  as:  “the  churches” — “the  Romish 
Church”  —  “the  Protestant  Church”  —  “the  Lu¬ 
theran  Church" — “the  Reformed,  the  Episcopal, 
the  Presbyterian,  Church,”  etc.;  then  the  “St. 
James'  M.  Ep.  Church,”  etc.,  etc.  Here  wTe  em¬ 
ploy  the  word  “Church”  in  order  to  designate  re¬ 
ligious  divisions,  denominations,  congregations,  etc. 
These,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  are  very  different 
things  from  that  one  and  only  Church  which  we 
have  just  described.  We  now  come  to  treat  of 
something  tangible,  a  something  palpable;  and 
though  a  thing  different  from  the  State,  yet  in 
some  things  analogous  to  it. 

Christians  are  kindred  in  spirit.  By  the  law 
of  affinity,  which  is  also  applicable  here,  they  are 
drawn  together  so  that  the  inward  unity  finds  ex¬ 
pression  in  an  outward  union,  and  the  inner  same¬ 
ness  of  forces  and  purposes  is  made  effective  in  an 
outward  uniform  and  conjoint  activity.  We  may 
say  that  it  is  in  part  the  social  nature  of  man 
which  here  asserts  itself,  but  in  its  hallowed  and 
re-enforced  condition.  Besides,  it  is  the  will  of 
their  common  Master  that  the  love  implanted  in 
their  hearts  be  mutual  and  produce  fellowship.  As 
thus  there  are  ontological,  so  there  are  teleological, 
reasons.  External  churchly  union  is  not  simply  to 
satisfy  an  internal  desire,  but  it  is  at  the  same  time 
for  the  accomplishment  of  certain  ends,  namely  : 
the  united  defense  and  propagation  of  Christianity. 

Suppose  now  that  in  a  certain  locality  Christ¬ 
ians  meet  Christians,  and  that  they  are  one  in  the 


§6. 


ITS  ESSENCE,  AND  FORMS. 


Ill 


faith.  This  being  the  case,  we  can  foretell  the  re¬ 
sult  almost  to  an  absolute  certainty.  Since  they 
find  pleasure  and  profit  in  communion,  since  they 
have  a  common  calling,  and  since  they  know  it  to 
be  a  privilege  and  duty  to  co-operate  in  this,  they 
will  formally  unite  and  constitute  themselves  a 
Christian  congregation  or  a  local  church.  Since  it 
need  not  necessarily  be  a  corporation ;  since,  to  be 
real,  it  cannot  be  a  mere  association  called  into  ex¬ 
istence  by  articles  of  agreement  only  ;  since  it  must 
be,  and  is,  a  living  structure,  brought  forth,  sup¬ 
ported  and  directed  by  a  living  moral  and  religious 
force — a  Christian  congregation  is,  in  view  of  these 

features,  an  organic  body. 

% 

From  the  above  the  conclusion  might  be  drawn 
by  one  or  the  other,  that  the  Christian  congregation 
is  nothing  other  than  a  local  and  separate  division 
of  the  Christian  Church— an  unalloyed,  component 
part  of  the  whole.  But  that  is  a  mistake.  In  the 
first  place,  the  constituent  element  of  the  Christian 
Church  is  faith  and  love;  the  constituent  element 
of  a  congregation  is  the  profession  of  that  faith  and 
love.  Because  men  cannot  see  faith  and  love,  they 
must  of  necessity  be  satisfied  with  their  profession. 
But  this  may  be  hollow  and  hypocritical ;  the  prob¬ 
able  result  is  that  with  the  believers  of  a  church 
there  are  unbelievers  mixed  up.  Now  this  proba¬ 
ble  admixture  is  one  consideration  which  must 
prevent  us  from  pronouncing  a  Christian  congrega¬ 
tion,  as  such,  a  part  purely  of  the  Christian  Church. 
Of  course,  you  may  think  away  everything  spurious 
and  foreign  to  a  Christian  congregation,  and  then 
consider  what  remains  a  part  of  the  Church ;  but 


112 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


then  you  must  not  forget  that  you  are  viewing  it 
not  as  it  is  but  as  it  should  be.  A  second  reason 
why  the  above  inference  is  fallacious,  is  this:  while 
the  Church  is  an  organic  body  and  spiritual  only, 
the  congregation  is  more — it  is  also  a  community  reg¬ 
ularly  formed  and  externally  established.  Necessary 
constituent  factors  of  the  latter  are  forms  of  doc¬ 
trines,  church-constitutions  and  laws,  church-rites, 
etc.,  and  these  are  things  more  or  less  humanly  de¬ 
vised  and  instituted,  and  hence  liable  to  errors  even 
and  changes.  In  the  Church  general  the  members 
are  united  only  by  an  inward,  invisible  bond ;  a 
congregation  presupposes  this  bond ;  and  on  it  as  a 
foundation,  and  moved  by  it  as  a  power,  its  mem¬ 
bers  are  also  bound  together  by  articles  of  agree¬ 
ment  as  laid  down  in  the  constitution  and  by-laws 
of  their  own  formation  and  adoption.  It  is  in  this 
respect,  and  considered  apart  from  its  origin  and  its 
peculiar  life  and  purpose,  an  association  of  men 
and  an  external  community — an  analogy  of  the 
State. 

Quite  a  practical  way  of  pointing  out  the  dif¬ 
ference  between  the  Church  and  a  congregation,  is 
the  following.  By  regeneration  or  conversion  a 
person  is  made  fully  a  member  of  the.  Church,  but 
not  necessarily  a  member  of  a  congregation ;  a 
member  of  the  latter  he  is  made  only  by  formal 
reception,  but  this  formal  reception  never  makes  a 
person  a  member  of  the  Church.  Membership  in 
the  one  and  membership  in  the  other  are  two  dis¬ 
tinct  relations,  for  the  one  can  be  without  the 
other,  though  this  should  not  be  the  case.  What 
then  is  a  Christian  congregation?  We  answer:  it 


113 


ITS  ESSENCE,  AND  FORMS. 


is  a  society  of  men,  but  of  a  peculiar  kind.  It  is  a 
society  produced  by  Christian  truth,  resting  on  a 
Christian  foundation,  pervaded  by  Christian  life, 
furnished  with  divine  means  and  existing  for  ends 
distinctive  of  the  Christian  religion.  In  all  this  it 
is  something  entirely  different  from  every  human 
organization.  Generically,  it  is  classed  as  an  or¬ 
ganized  society — an  external  association  of  men, 
indeed,  but  of  men  professing  Christianity.  It  is 
a  religious  society,  and  whose  religion  is  the  Chris¬ 
tian.  The  word  “  society  ”  tells  us  what  it  is; 
“ religion”  expresses  its  general  quality  or  charac¬ 
ter,  and  the  word  “  Christian”  specifies  the  charac¬ 
ter  as  peculiar  and  distinctive;  “of  men”  points 
out  its  tangibility. 

Understanding  what  are  Christian  congrega¬ 
tions,  we  can  have  little  or  no  difficulty  in  making 
out  what  is  meant  by  the  word  “church”  when  ap¬ 
plied  to  Christian  denominations.  Generally  speak¬ 
ing,  these  are  the  aggregate  of  the  former.  Take 
all  the  Christian  congregations  of  a  certain  distinct 
order — the  Episcopal  for  example — and  conceive 
them  to  be  more  or  less  united  into  one  whole,  and 
you  have  what  is  called,  in  this  case,  the  Episcopal 
denomination  or  church.  Again,  because  Chris¬ 
tians  differ  more  or  less  in  points  of  doctrine  and 
on  questions  of  forms  and  practices,  this  gives  rise 
to  denominations  or  churches,  expressive  of  these 
differences.  Thus  the  sum-total  of  Presbyterians 
and  Presbyterian  congregations  constitutes  the  Pres¬ 
byterian  denomination  or  Church ;  the  sum-total 
of  Baptists  and  of  Baptist  congregations  is  the 

Baptist  Church;  and  so  on.  As  a  matter  of  course, 
5* 


114 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


these  parts,  as  constituting  a  whole,  are  not  a 
whole  merely  in  conception  but  they  are  really 
bound  together,  inwardly  by  their  common  belief, 
outwardly  by  articles  of  agreement  and  by  laws  of 
their  own  free  enactment.  On  account  of  this  latter 
bond  between  the  several  parts,  these  again  pro¬ 
duce  a  whole  which  in  its  nature  and  mode  of  be¬ 
ing  has  all  the  essential  features  of  an  organized 
society. 

Now  in  both,  the  Christian  congregation  and 
denomination,  we  have  come  upon  an  entity ,  called 
“church,”  of  which  the  State  can  take  cognizance  and 
concerning  which,  for  various  reasons,  it  must  take 
some  action .  The  Church,  in  this  sense,  is  a  thing 
just  as  substantial,  perceptible  and  tactile  as  is  the 
State  itself,  or  as  is  any  merely  human  society. 
Though  it  is  upon  the  whole  an  outgrowth  of  an 
invisible  body — of  the  Church  proper — yet  it  is 
a  something  more,  and  again  a  something  less, 
than  the  invisible  made  manifest — it  is  a  different 
body  not  only  in  formal  but  in  essential  parts;  for 
to  its  existence  the  formal  constitutionality  is  es¬ 
sential !.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  a  body  essentially 
different  from  the  State,  as  also  from  every  combi¬ 
nation  of  men  merely  human;  in  this  namely,  that 
it  is  organically  Christian. 

The  question  of  Church  and  State  is  therefore 
an  inquiry  into  the  relation  between  the  State  and 
the  Church  as  an  external  religious  association ,  and 
not  between  it  and  the  Church  as  a  body  spiritual 
and  therefore  invisible — largely  though  this,  be¬ 
cause  of  its  close  relation  to  the  external  body,  is 
affected  by  the  position  assumed  by  the  first  named 


115 


ITS  ESSENCE,  AND  FORMS. 


body  with  respect  to  the  other.  We  have  thus  de¬ 
termined  the  sense  in  which  we  now  intend  to  em¬ 
ploy  the  word  “Church”  generally  throughout  these 
pages.  We  might,  following  the  example  of  an¬ 
other,  preserve  more  clearly  the  distinction  estab¬ 
lished  by  using  the  word  “church-dom ;  ”  but,  in 
the  first  place,  this  term  is  unusual,  and  in  the 
second  place,  it  seems  to  us  to  exclude  too  much 
the  spiritual  side  of  the  Church’s  existence.  By 
“the  Church,”  then,  we  intend  to  designate  the 
aggregate  of  those  organized  societies  which  are  so 
many  forms  in  which  the  living  reality  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  manifest — in  the  one  with 
greater,  in  the  other  with  less,  purity  and  power. 

It  remains  for  us  to  see  how  the  State  takes 
official  notice  of  the  Church,  and  defines  and  classi¬ 
fies  it.  This  evidently  must  differ  somewhat  from 
our  own  Christian  view  of  it.  The  State  can  only 
judge  it  according  to  its  own  powers ;  and  here  we 
must  remember  that  it  has  no  power  of  judgment 
and  discrimination  in  matters  purely  religious — at 
least,  not  in  revealed  religion.  It  has  the  ability 
to  perceive  the  fact  of  its  existence  from  the  exter¬ 
nal  evidences,  for  to  do  this  the  intellect  alone  suf¬ 
fices;  but  to  form  a  true  opinion  on  the  essence  and 
nature  of  any  religion  transcending  the  natural, 
it  has  not  the  faculty.  Spiritual  things  must  be 
spiritually  discerned;  here  the  natural  powers  are 
wholly  inadequate.  But  in  the  State  there  reside, 
and  are  active,  none  but  natural  powers — the  in¬ 
tellect  and  the  common  moral  sense  of  the  com¬ 
munity,  not  to  mention  the  physical.  Just  so  soon, 
therefore,  as  the  State  presumes  to  pass  a  defining 


116 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


and  discriminating  judgment  on  spiritual  things, 
it  exercises  powers  which  are  foreign  to  itself,  and 
thus  passes  out  of  its  legitimate  sphere  of  action. 
Howrever,  it  can  know  and  notice  the  Church  in  its 
capacity  of  a  society;  and  more  than  that,  it  can 
know  and  classify  it  as  a  religious  society  and  so 
distinguish  it  from  itself  as  a  society  politic,  then 
also  from  municipal  societies,  from  eleemosynary 
associations,  from  unions,  stock-companies,  and  the 
like.  Farther  it  cannot  go,  and  need  not  go.  It 
cannot  distinguish  between  the  religiously  false 
and  true,  between  the  religions  of  the  Jew  and  the 
Gentile,  of  the  Christian  and  the  deist,  of  the 
Protestant  and  the  Romanist,  of  the  predestinarian 
and  Pelagian,  etc.  A  church  can  do  these  things, 
and  therefore  also  a  state-church  and  a  church-state 
can  do  them,  but  never  a  State  as  such.  The  most 
complete  definition  this  can  possibly  give  is  accord¬ 
ingly  this,  that  a  church  is  an  external  religious 
society;  and,  as  w^e  have  seen  above,  it  is  correct 
though  not  exhaustive.  Its  internal,  spiritual  na¬ 
ture  it  cannot  understand  nor  describe. 

The  question  also  suggests  itself  here  how  a 
religious  society  comes  to  have  an  existence  in  the 
recognition  of  the  State.  It  is  plain  that  an  asso¬ 
ciation  may  be  formed  and  hence  exist  de  facto ,  but 
whether  also  de  jure  is  quite  another  thing.  It 
certainly  does  not  exist  by  right  if  founded  con¬ 
trary  to  law,  no  matter  what  its  virtues  and  its 
wrorth  may  be.  So  too,  though  its  formation  may 
not  be  illegal,  still  the  State  may  ignore  its  ex¬ 
istence  unless  it  have  complied  with  certain  re¬ 
quirements  of  law.  The  rule  is  that  no  society 


6. 


ITS  ESSENCE,  AND  FORMS. 


117 


have  an  existence  in  the  eye  of  the  State  except 
by  virtue  and  in  consequence  of  a  certain  process 
called  u  incorporation To  effect  this  act,  three  gen¬ 
eral  modes  are  conceivable.  First,  the  State  may 
legislate  to  the  effect  that  the  fact  of  its  formation 
shall  be  all  that  is  required  to  constitute  a  society 
a  body  incorporate — a  very  loose  way  of  doing 
business,  this  is ;  still  it  is  not  only  conceivable 
but  even  in  vogue  to  some  extent.  Secondly,  a 
society  may  become  a  body  incorporate  by  pre¬ 
scription  ;  that  is :  by  the  fact  of  its  existence  and 
operation  without  State-interference  for  a  certain 
definite  period  of  time — generally  by  the  lapse  of 
some  years.  Thirdly,  a  society  may  become  a  cor¬ 
poration  by  charter,  or  by  a  general  or  special  legis¬ 
lative  act,  whereby  special  rights  are  granted  and 
special  duties  exacted.  The  last  we  believe  to  be 
the  rule  generally  in  vogue  throughout  the  United 
States — though  the  first  and  second  methods  are  by 
no  means  unknown.  Here  then  we  learn  the  ad- 
ditonal  fact  that  the  Church  is  to  the  State  a  body 
u incorporate”  or,  as  it  is  perhaps  more  properly 
called,  a  u person  by  fiction  of  law ”  Now  it  is  by 
this  act  of  incorporation,  really — which  being  in 
its  nature  a  contract  between  the  Church  and  the 
State — that  the  relation  between  the  two  bodies  is 
established.  By  it  the  Church  may  be  recognized 
simply  as  an  entity  existing  in  the  State,  or  it  may 
thereby  even  be  made  an  integral  part  and  depart¬ 
ment  of  the  State — hence  the  importance  of  the  con¬ 
tract  entered  by  the  act  of  incorporation. 


118 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


/ 


§  7.  THE  CHURCH  WITH  REFERENCE  TO  ITS 

OBJECT,  AND  ITS  MEANS  AND  MODE  OF  OP¬ 
ERATION. 

When,  in  our  description  of  the  Church,  great 
prominence  was  given  to  that  side  of  its  existence 
according  to  which  it  is  a  legally  constituted  society, 
this  was  done  for  a  twofold  reason,  first:  to  distin¬ 
guish  it  from  the  Church  invisible  and  thus  with 
all  possible  care  to  guard  against  their  identifica¬ 
tion;  secondly:  to  hold  it  up  in  that  light  in  which 
alone  the  State  is  able  to  know  and  take  action 
concerning  it.  But  when  thus,  for  a  special  reason, 
one  essential  feature  of  our  subject  is  emphasized 
we  must  not  for  a  moment  lose  sight  of  the  other 
and  the  far  more  important,  because  it  is  the  fun¬ 
damental  and  characteristic  part.  The  Church,  as 
we  now  conceive  it  and  speak  of  it,  is  a  duality. 
It  is  spiritual  and  corporeal,  a  community  bound 
together  inwardly  and  outwardly,  in  spirit  and  in 
body.  “  The  Church  is  not  only  a  communion  of 
things  and  usages  external,  as  are  other  communi¬ 
ties — politiae — but  pre-eminently  the  communion  of 
faith  and  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  hearts.” 

Normally,  it  is  the  inward  unity  which  ex¬ 
presses  itself  in  the  outward  union;  it  is  the  nature 
of  the  Spirit  that  gives  character  to  the  form ;  and 
it  is  the  life  within  that  manifests  itself  in  the  work 
without.  Empirically,  however,  existing  churches 
are  not  so  many  manifestations  of  the  one  true 
Church — of  the  body  invisible.  If  they  were,  then, 


119 


ITS  OBJECT,  AND  ITS  METHODS. 


because  these  churches  are  more  or  less  antagonistic, 
would  the  Church,  the  kingdom  of  God,  be  divided 
against  itself,  which  would  be  impossible.  Wher¬ 
ever  a  church  in  all  things  spiritual  is  in  full  ac¬ 
cord  with  the  whole  of  divine  truth  and  in  its 
confession  neither  adds  thereto  nor  subtracts  there¬ 
from,  there  is,  what  is  called,  “the  true  visible 
church.”  But  the  fact  is  that  churches,  as  they 
are,  only  more  or  less  approximate  this  perfect 
ideal.  They  are  not  what  they  should  be,  and  do 
not  always  what  they  should  do,  in  every  respect. 
Generally,  they  err  in  doctrine  and  sin  in  practice. 
Some,  for  example,  dabble  in  politics,  others  in 
doubtful  business-speculations,  while  still  others 
bring  reproach  upon  the  good  cause  they  profess  to 
serve  by  converting  their  temples  into  exposition- 
buildings,  theaters,  ball-rooms  and  restaurants. 

Now  it  will  not  do  for  us  to  consider  phenomena 
such  as  these  to  be  in  any  way  indicative  of  what 
really  the  Church  is,  nor  of  what  may  be  its  proper 
business.  To  ascertain  with  safety  its  true  and 
legitimate  object,  we  must  be  wholly  guided  by 
what  the  Church  itself  is  and  is  for — is,  and  is  for 
according  to  the  will  of  its  Creator  and  Lord.  It 
being  in  its  inmost  and  living  self  a  spiritual  or¬ 
ganism  and,  by  the  meaning  of  the  word  used  to 
designate  it,  a  something  distinct  from  everything 
else,  it  is  beyond  the  power  of  men  to  create  any 
body  and  this  for  any  purpose  they  please,  and 
then  call  the  medley  so  produced  a  “church.”  The 
attempt  to  do  this — and  it  has  been  made — is  pre¬ 
posterous  in  the  extreme.  With  just  as  much 
reason,  or  rather  want  of  reason,  might  a  boy 


120 


THE  CHUHCH. 


II. 


whittle  a  pine  chip  into  a  jumping-jack  and  then 
call  this  “areal  live  monkey;”  and  no  more  fool¬ 
ish  were  it  to  call  an  orang-outang  fresh  from  the 
hands  of  a  taxidermist  a  living  man. 

Reasoning  from  the  true  nature  of  the  Church 
and  guided  by  the  express  will  of  God  concerning 
it,  what  is  its  real  object?  and  what  are  the  means 
and  methods  to  be  employed  for  the  accomplish¬ 
ment  of  that  object?  To  answer  these  questions 
we  must  first  of  all  direct  our  attention  to  those 
features  of  the  Church  which  are  essential  and  in¬ 
dispensable  and,  at  the  same  time,  peculiar  to  it; 
and  in  the  second  place,  to  such  matters  as  are  ac¬ 
cidental  and  yet  necessary  to  it,  but  at  the  same 
time  more  or  less  common  to  other  entities. 

Individual  Christians  and  Christians  collec¬ 
tively  have  a  mission  intrusted  to  them.  They 
are  divinely  charged  to  teach,  or  rather  to  make 
disciples, — “ ^a^revaare^ — of  all  nations.  In  these 
words  of  its  commission  we  find  expressed  in  its 
entire  compass  the  work  proper  of  the  Church. 
The  propagation  of  the  Christian  religion  is  its  object . 
To  disciple  all  nations  includes  two  things  :  to  ad¬ 
vance  and  confirm  those  already  discipled ;  and, 
to  disciple  others.  In  other  words,  the  object  of 
churchly  organizations  is :  with  reference  to  them¬ 
selves,  edification;  and  with  reference  to  those 
without,  conversion ;  hence,  self-edification  in,  and 
conversion  unto,  things  spiritual  and  divine. 

Since  the  work  to  be  done  is  spiritual,  the 
means  employed  for  its  execution  must  necessarily 
be  of  the  same  nature.  Forces  purely  physical  and 


121 


ITS  OBJECT,  AND  ITS  METHODS. 


intellectual  can  never  produce  moral  and  religious 
results;  neither  can,  what  is  strictly  moral  only, 
beget  anything  fully  religious.  Here,  too,  like  be¬ 
gets  like.  A  lesson  from  natural  philosophy,  a 
lecture  on  the  fine  arts,  a  discourse  on  the  mind — 
be  the  truth  taught  and  the  truth  be  learned  in 
each — in  no  case  will  truth  such  as  this  bear  spirit¬ 
ual  fruit.  Things  of  this  sort  may  in  a  remote 
way  subserve  the  great  purpose  of  the  Church,  but 
they  can  never  accomplish  the  purpose  itself.  To 
do  this  there  is  given  but  one  truth  and  power  of 
truth.  When  the  Church  is  commissioned  by  the 
Lord  to  do  His  work,  He  plainly  points  out  the 
means  for  its  doing,  namely,  the  Gospel,  or  the 
divine  Word.  That  is  the  living  and  ever-abiding 
power  by  which  men  can  be  born  again  and  re¬ 
newed  unto  the  image  of  God.  There  is  none 
other;  and  there  need  not  be,  it  is  all-sufficient. 
This  Word,  including  the  saving  ordinances  there¬ 
in  instituted,  has  been  intrusted  to  the  Church  for 
administration.  Now,  just  here  it  would  be  well 
for  us  to  notice,  and  then  to  remember,  that  these 
means  and  no  other ,  and  that  this  office  of  their  ad¬ 
ministration,  and  no  other  office ,  have  been  com¬ 
mitted  to  the  Church,  and  committed  to  no  other  body. 
There  is  nothing  which  can  better  serve  to  make 
clear  the  distinction  existing  between  the  Church 
and  every  other  organization  than  can  this  its  pecu¬ 
liar  object  and  these  its  peculiar  means  and  this 
the  office  of  their  handling.  So  intensely  charac¬ 
teristic  are  these  features  of  the  Church  that  any 
society,  no  matter  what  its  name  and  purpose  are 

otherwise,  just  as  soon  as  it  makes  it  an  object  “  to 
6 


122 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


*  preach  the  word”  is  thereby  at  once  turned  into  “a 
church.” 

From  the  kind  of  work  it  is  to  do  and  from 
the  means  placed  into  its  hands  for  the  execution 
of  that  work,  the  modus  operandi  of  the  Church 
is  obvious.  It  is,  in  this  respect,  not  legislative, 
judicial,  and  executive,  as  is  the  modus  operandi 
of  the  State  and  of  men  in  affairs  political.  Its 
methods  and  manner  of  working  are  wholly  didac¬ 
tic,  admonitory,  persuasive,  regenerative,  liberat¬ 
ing,  sanctifying,  saving — and  all  this,  and  through¬ 
out  it  all,  without  anything  in  its  hands  but  the 
word  of  divine  truth.  This  it  is  to  teach  and 
preach  with  power,  in  purity,  and  in  love.  Souls, 
to  be  won,  must  be  wooed;  to  be  won  for  God  they 
must  be  sought  with  the  truth  of  God,  and  in  a 
manner  ever  solicitous  though  sometimes  painful, 
and  never  compulsory  and  repellent.  The  only 
thing  aimed  at  is  religion,  a  supreme  fear,  love 
and  trust  of  God — in  all  its  parts,  therefore,  affec¬ 
tions  of  the  heart.  To  implant  and  cultivate  these 
the  heart,  to  which  alone  they  can  be  made  in¬ 
digenous,  must  be  worked;  and  thus  the  nature  of 
tha  field  as  well  as  the  fruit  to  be  grown  points  out 
the  way  in  which  the  labor  must  necessarily  be 
performed. 

Such  is  the  object,  such  are"  the  means  and 
methods,  of  the  Church  by  divine  appointment. 
Because  divinely  ordered,  they  are  essential  and 
unchangeable.  They  are  to  the  Church  the  sine 
qua  non  of  its  existence,  progress  and  final  con¬ 
summation.  They  must  be ,  and  they  must  be  just  so , 
in  order  that  it  may  be  and  abide,  and  be  true  to  it- 


123 


ITS  OBJECT,  AND  ITS  METHODS. 


self  and  faithful  to  its  Lord.  But  since  an  orderly 
and  prosperous  administration  of  this  its  office 
proper  renders  a  legally  constituted  form  of  exis- 
ence  necessary,  the  Church  must,  as  a  society 
humanly  constituted,  attend  to  many  other  things 
besides  the  work  thus  far  described.  Which  are 
these  other  things? 

Inasmuch  as  the  outward  and  humanly  or¬ 
dered  side  of  its  being  is  subservient  and  second¬ 
ary  to  its  inner  divine  side  of  existence,  we  may 
very  appropriately  call  all  those  matters,  which 
pertain  more  directly  to  the  former,  the  accessory. 
Accessory  only,  however,  in  their  relation  to  the 
things  spoken  of  above  and  found  to  be  divinely 
established;  for  in  themselves  they  are,  in  part  at 
least,  most  important  if  not  indispensably  neces¬ 
sary.  In  its  capacity  of  a  human  society  the 
Church  possesses  and  exercises  all  the  junctions  of  a 
human  association.  Here  now  it  presents  itself  to 
our  view  as  a  body  legislative,  judicial,  and  execu¬ 
tive.  The  naming  of  these  powers  involuntarily 
reminds  us  of  the  State ;  and  to  this  we  might 
point  by  way  of  illustration,  were  the  analogy 
more  complete.  Though  there  is  similarity,  there 
is  not  much  likeness — but  of  this  more  anon. 

When  a  number  of  Christians  will  constitute 
themselves  a  church,  they  must  proceed  as  men 
generally  do  when  they  organize  a  society.  They 
must  devise  and  adopt  a  constitution.  The  for¬ 
mality  is  in  both  cases  much  the  same,  but  in  the 
giverr  substance  they  differ  very  widely.  Whereas 
in  the  one  case  men  give  expression  to  their  own 
thoughts,  will  and  purpose,  and  in  matters  human ; 


124 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


in  the  other,  expression  must  be  given  to  the  will  of 
God  in  things  spiritual.  The  most  important  fea¬ 
ture  is,  of  course,  the  doctrinal  or  confessional  basis, 
that  is,  the  form  of  faith  to  be  adhered  to  and  to 
be  promulgated.  For  this  the  material  is  indeed 
given  in  divine  revelation,  but  men  must  formu¬ 
late  it.  And  since  this  confession  is  designated  to 
give  character  to  the  whole  body  and  to  serve  as 
a  directing  principle  in  all  subsequent  action,  a 
more  important  business  than  the  agreement  upon 
a  doctrinal  basis  can  never  present  itself  to  a  body 
of  Christians.  Next  in  importance  is  the  condi¬ 
tion  of  membership  whereby  the  Church  is  to  se- 

« 

cure  and  preserve  its  integrity.  For  this,  too,  the 
material  is  really  given ;  but  it  is  the  office  of  the 
organization  to  give  it  shape,  and  to  see  to  it  that 
no  one  be  admitted  whom  God  would  have  ex¬ 
cluded  and  no  one  be  excluded  whom  He  would 
have  admitted.  The  spiritual  privileges  and  du¬ 
ties  of  church-membership  are  in  no  way  to  be 
subject  to  the  mere  whim  and  will  of  men;  and 
herein  the  Church  has  to  do  no  more  than  to  ascer¬ 
tain  which  these  are  by  the  will  of  its  Lord,  and 
then  plainly  to  enunciate  and  faithfully  to  apply 
that  will.  Moreover,  since  its  prime  object  is  to  be 
obtained  by  teaching  and  preaching,  it  must  be  its 
business  to  educate,  to  appoint,  to  support,  to  su¬ 
pervise,  and,  if  need  be,  to  depose,  its  own  teachers 
and  pastors.  In  all  this  it  must  proceed  in  full 
accord  with  divine  direction.  In  other  affairs, 
concerning  which  no  higher  instruction  is  given, 
such  as  are  the  number,  the  kind  and  the  powers  of 
its  officers;  the  ordering  of  its  culture;  the  style  and 


125 


ITS  OBJECT,  AND  ITS  METHODS. 


cost  of  its  buildings ;  the  management  of  its  prop¬ 
erty  ;  its  ecclesiastical  connections,  to  some  extent; 
the  transaction  of  business,  etc.,  it  is  left  free  to  use 
its  own  good  judgment  and  to  proceed  accordingly, 
subject,  however,  to  the  general  rule  that  every¬ 
thing  be  done  decently  and  in  order,  to  the  edifying 
of  the  whole  body,  and  that  in  nothing  there  be 
implied  even  the  least  contradiction  to  the  prin¬ 
ciples  of  the  divine  word. 

Now  when  we  say  that  the  Church  makes  laws 
and  applies  and  enforces  them,  this  is  said  more 
with  regard  to  the  form  of  action  than  the  spirit  of 
it.  The  form  is  legal,  the  spirit  must  be  evangel¬ 
ical.  In  their  form  its  enactments  are  laws,  in 
their  spirit  they  are  rules  and  regulations.  There 
is  good  reason  for  this;  for  they  are  intended  to 
serve  a  double  purpose,  if  need  be.  They  are  to  be 
used  as  laws  against  any  disturbing  element  from 
within  and  from  without  when  nothing  that  is  less 
peremptory  and  authoritative  than  is  the  power  of 
law  can  answer  the  purpose  of  protection.  With 
reference  to  the  members  themselves,  however — 
excepting  the  unreasonable  and  rebellious  just 
named — church-legislation  has  simply  and  solely — 
should  have,  at  least — a  directing,  educational  and 
regulative,  and  not  a  legal,  significance.  No  mat¬ 
ter  how  small  the  affair  may  be  concerning  which 
“laws”  are  laid  down,  and  how  earthly  it  may  be 
in  itself,  if  the  Church  legislate  concerning  it  at  all, 
it  must  ever  do  so  with  an  eye  single  to  man’s 
highest  relation  of  life — his  relation,  and  of  all  he 
has  and  does,  to  God.  And  from  this  view  of  the 
action,  nothing  less  than  an  intelligent  and  willing 
obedience  can  be  satisfactory.  Properly  speaking, 


126 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


then,  it  is  the  business  of  the  church  to  lay  down 
rules  of  action  and  seek  their  cheerful  observance 
on  the  part  of  all  its  members,  not  by  the  force  of 
law,  but,  by  inculcating  in  their  hearts  that  wis¬ 
dom,  sense  of  right,  and  goodness,  of  which  such 
rules  are  the  expression.  Human  societies,  and  the 
State,  may  be,  and  often  must  be,  satisfied  with  the 
overt  act  of  obedience;  the  Church  cannot — it  must 
inquire  into  the  motive.  To  eradicate  the  bad,  to 
correct  the  wrong,  and  to  implant  good  motives  of 
action  is,  so  to  speak,  one-half  of  its  mission. 

Having  ascribed  governmental  functions  to 
the  Church,  it  is  important  to  note  the  nature  of 
those  affairs  and  relations  with  respect  to  which  it 
possesses  such  powers.  In  so  far  as  God  Himself 
has  spoken,  it  has  simply  to  state  the  fact :  “  Thus 
saith  the  Lord !”  Here  it  has  no  legislative  author¬ 
ity.  But,  as  we  have  seen,  there  are  many  things 
not  divinely  established  but  left  for  the  Church  to 
determine  and  arrange  as  best  it  can.  Herein  it 
legislates,  and  herein  only ;  here  it  governs  with 
the  liberty  given  it  so  to  do,  but  always  in  accord¬ 
ance  with,  never  contrary  to,  the  Word  which  at 
least  furnishes  general  principles  for  all  kinds  of 
action.  Then,  that  it  legislates  and  governs  at  all 
is  a  matter  due  chiefly  to  its  constitutional  mode  of 
existence  and  its  existence  in  the  world.  “  But 
that  must  never  be  forgotten,  which  many  are  dis¬ 
posed  to  forget :  so  long  as  there  can  be  mention  of 
a  constitution  or  an  external  regulation  of  the 
Church — and  there  will  be  mention  of  this,  through¬ 
out  its  earthly  existence,  whatever  may  be  other¬ 
wise  thought  of  its  condition — so  long  will  it  also, 
even  when  all  constraint  of  conscience  is  excluded,  yet 


§  7.  ITS  OBJECT,  AND  ITS  METHODS.  127 


continue  under  judicial  regulations,  even  though 
these  be  self-appointed ;  and  to  these  its  members 
must  submit,  so  far  as  they  wish  to  continue  its 
members :  so  long  will  there  be  in  the  Church  also 
an  external  legal  Moment,  a  nomistic  Moment, 
which  does  not  accord  (fully)  with  the  ideal  of 
evangelical  liberty,  of  the  liberty  of  God’s  children. 
As  an  earthly  society,  with  external  ordinances, 
and  a  mixture  of  pure  and  impure,  living  and 
dead,  or  half-dead  members,  the  Church  will  al¬ 
ways  be  different  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  of 
which  our  Lord  speaks  in  His  parables,  and  which 
never  attains  perfect  manifestation  here  below.  To 
this  diversity  and  contrast  it  belongs  also,  that  it 
— the  Church — can  never  be  perfectly  freed  from 
the  external  law,  and  all  the  contingencies  which 
accompany  the  relation  of  liberty  to  these.  The 
external  appointments  of  justice  find  their  most 
perfect  representative  in  the  State,  but  are  impera¬ 
tively  necessary  for  every  earthly  society  which  as 
such  seeks  to  enter  the  outer  world,  and  which  has 
therefore  a  side  which  is  allied,  is  analogous,  to  the 
State.”  ( Martensen’s  Eth .  §  144). 

While  speaking  of  its  governmental  powers,  it 
will  not  be  inappropriate  to  say  a  word  or  two  in 
answer  to  the  question  :  in  whom  does  this  authority 
reside?  We  answer:  originally  and  ultimately  in  the 
members  of  the  Church .  Not  in  the  vestry,  not  in  the 
ministry,  not  in  conferences,  synods  and  councils, 
not  in  the  bishops,  not  in  the  pope.  We  maintain 
that  every  Christian  congregation  is  itself  the 
highest  judicatory  in  its  own  affairs.  Were  we  at 
all  to  discuss  the  matter  we  would  follow  the  same 
course  of  reasoning  adopted  to  show  that  political 


128 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


sovereignty  originally  rests  in  the  body  of  the  peo¬ 
ple.  As  there  we  started  out  from  the  indisputable 
fact  that  all  men,  as  the  creatures  of  God,  are  equal 
and  that  no  one  is  created  the  subject  and  slave  of 
another — so  here  we  would  start  from  the  fact  no 
less  incontrovertible,  namely,  that  Christians  are 
all  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus — 
that  no  one  is  more  and  no  one  is  less ;  that  no  one 
is  lord  and  no  one  is  servant,  but  that  all  are  free. 
Then,  in  the  second  place,  since  no  one  is  the  lord 
of  another,  neither  by  natural  generation,  polit¬ 
ically,  nor  by  spiritual  regeneration,  churchly — all 
are  in  both  spheres  free  and  equal  in  authority,  un¬ 
less  there  can  be  produced  a  divine  order  to  the 
contrary.  But  as  no  man  or  body  of  men  can  show 
up  a  divine  brief  granting  them  political  authority 
over  others,  no  more  will  any  pastor  or  priest, 
bishop  or  pope,  synod  or  council,  be  able  to  show 
that  they  are  divinely  appointed  to  rule  in  the 
Church.  The  Christian  congregation  can,  of  course, 
intrust  the  administration  of  its  own  inherent  powers 
to  individuals  and  individual  bodies — but  these 
powers  themselves  belong  to  the  Christian  people; 
and  for  their  use  and  abuse  these  will  ever  be  held 
responsible  by  Him  who  has  conferred  them.  The 
powers  of  a  vestry,  of  a  council,  etc.,  are  delegated 
powers  only ;  and  they  extend  over  the  congrega¬ 
tions  of  their  belonging.  As  in  affairs  civil,  so  in 
affairs  ecclesiastical,  people  should  bind  them¬ 
selves,  by  this  delegation  of  powers,  as  little  as  pos¬ 
sible.  In  them  both  we  hold  the  best  form  of  gov¬ 
ernment  to  be  the  democratic — the  government  by 
the  people  themselves,  and  with  as  little  representa¬ 
tion  as  expedient. 


LIMITS  AND  POWERS  OF  ACTION. 


129 


A 


§  8.  THE  BOUNDARIES  OF  CHURCHLY  ACTIVITY 
AND  THE  LIMITS  OF  ITS  POWERS. 

Among  all  those  propensities  of  human  nature 
which  men  generally  consider  to  be  comparatively 
innocent  there  is  none  so  pernicious  and  disastrous 
in  its  workings  as  is  a  presumptuous  and  meddle¬ 
some  disposition.  Safety  and  prosperity  are  every¬ 
where  largely  dependent  on  good  order.  The  Jack- 
of-all-trades  is  most  always  a  man  poor  and  un¬ 
happy ;  and  the  moral  of  Jack’s  life  is  highly 
significant.  It  teaches  us  the  importance  of  that 
wisdom  which  would  have  each  man  to  abide  in 
his  own  appropriate  calling;  yes,  and  not  only  each 
man,  but  likewise  every  body  of  men,  be  it  a  busi¬ 
ness-firm,  a  stock-company,  a  scientific,  a  literary, 
or  a  benevolent  society,  and  be  it  the  State  or  be  it 
the  Church.  On  account  of  its  high  calling  and 
special  moral  worth,  it  cannot  be  considered  as 
anything  amiss  if  we  expect  the  Church  to  be  a 
model  in  its  love  and  observance  of  order.  It  is 
taught  and  it  teaches  that  “  God  is  not  the  author 
of  confusion,  but  of  peace,  as  in  all  churches  of  the 
saints;”  and  certainly,  the  example  should  accom¬ 
pany,  follow,  illustrate  and  confirm  the  precept. 

We  have  seen  what  is  the  purpose  and  what 
are  the  means  and  ways  of  churchly  activity  proper. 
We  now  inquire  more  particularly  within  which 
sphere  it  is  to  be  thus  active,  and  what  are  the 
limits  of  its  rights  and  powers.  Judging  from  the 
way  it  is  constituted,  there  are  few  things  it  might 


130 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


not  be  able  to  do ;  for  it  is  a  vast  spiritual,  moral, 
intellectual  and  material  power.  Conscious  of  this 
fact,  it  is  always  tempted  to  step  out  of  its  own  do¬ 
main  over  into  such  as  are  forbidden ;  and,  we  are 
sorry  to  say,  it  does  at  times  yield  to  the  tempta¬ 
tion.  But  here,  as  elsewhere,  the  power  to  do  a 
thing  must  be  coupled  with  the  authority  to  do  it 
before  it  can  rightfully  be  exercised.  Where  the 
one  is  applied  without  this  other,  there  is  trespass, 
even  if  it  is  the  Church  that  does  it.  But,  since 
this  is  called  to  disciple  all  nations ,  how,  you  might 
ask,  can  there  be  a  limit  to  its  sphere  of  action 
here  on  earth  ?  True,  it  has  a  call  embracing  the 
whole  of  mankind.  The  entire  world  is  its  field. 
Notwithstanding  this,  there  is  a  possibility  of  trans¬ 
gression  even  here  already.  Suppose  an  individual, 
or  an  entire  nation,  objects  to  its  ministration  and 
forbids  it  to  take  place  within  his  own  territory,  as 
is  not  infrequently  the  case,  what  then?  Under 
such  circumstances  a  double  procedure  is  possible, 
but  only  one  course  of  action  is  really  legitimate. 
The  Church  might  attempt  to  win  or  to  force  its 
way.  To  win  its  way  by  moral  suasion,  if  it  can, 
is  perfectly  proper — even  its  duty ;  but  to  force  it 
vi  et  armis  is  decidedly  wrong.  When  it  is  writ¬ 
ten  that  the  Church,  that  Christians  are  to  go  out 
into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every 
creature,  it  is  written  likewise  that  where  they  are 
not  received  and  their  words  are  not  heard,  there, 
going  forth  out  of  that  house  or  that  city,  they  shall 
shake  off  the  dust  from  their  feet. 

The  Church  may  be  as  powerful  even  as  is  the 
State,  and  more ;  but  its  rights  with  respect  to  the 


8. 


LIMITS  AND  POWERS  OF  ACTION. 


131 


liberty  and  property  of  the  individual  outside  of 
its  connection,  are  none  other  than  that  of  a  private 
person .  It  is  bound  to  respect  the  civil  and  relig¬ 
ious  liberty  of  every  man ;  and  if  he  abuse  his  lib¬ 
erty  by  disallowing  all  religious  ministrations  in 
his  presence  and  on  his  premises,  it  has  no  right  of 
recourse  to  compulsory  measures.  In  a  word  no 
missionary,  no  pastor,  has  a  right  to  force  himself 
and  his  services  on  any  individual,  family,  or  na¬ 
tion  ;  neither  has  the  Church  such  right,  though  it 
possess  ample  power  to  do  things  of  that  kind.  If 
it  does,  it  goes  beyond  the  work  of  its  calling.  To 
spread  religion  with  the  aid  or  by  the  use  of  the 
sword  or  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet,  is  a  Moham¬ 
medan  abomination  and  incompatible  with  every 
humane,  not  to  say  Christian,  principle  and  senti¬ 
ment. 

As  it  is  unlawful  for  the  Church  by  other  than 
moral  and  spiritual  means  to  advance  its  cause,  no 
more  has  it  the  right  to  defend  itself  by  any  other 
than  these  same  means.  On  this  point  the  words 
of  its  Lord  are  conclusive.  He  says:  “  My  king¬ 
dom  is  not  of  this  world :  if  my  kingdom  were  of 
this  world,  then  would  my  servants  fight,  that  I 
should  not  be  delivered  to  the  Jews  :  but  now  is  my 
kingdom  not  from  hence.”  And  when  the  san¬ 
guine  Peter,  forgetful  of  this,  nevertheless  drew  the 
sword  in  defense  of  his  Master,  he  was  forthwith 
rebuked,  and  commanded  to  sheathe  his  weapon. 

But  what  is  the  Church  to  do  in  case  it  be  as¬ 
sailed,  and  brute-force  be  turned  to  its  destruction 
and  extermination,  if  this  were  possible?  We  well 
know  that  in  the  past  it  has  been  forced  more  than 


132 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


once  to  run  the  ordeal  of  the  sword  and  the  spear, 
the  dungeon  and  the  den,  the  rack  and  the  gibbet, 
the  caldron  and  the  pyre,  as  of  other  instruments 
of  torture.  Those  were  sad  days,  indeed!  and  more 
horrible  scenes  than  these  the  world  has  never  wit¬ 
nessed — unless  it  was  when,  in  the  sweet  name  of 
the  Prince  of  Peace  Himself,  the  Church,  but  no, 
rather  what  was  called  the  Church,  acted — let  us 
say — no  less  inhumanely!  Happily,  such  tyranny 
and  cruelties  belong  to  the  past ;  but  the  Church 
may  be  persecuted  again,  and  the  question  remains 
unanswered,  what  is  it  to  do  in  defense  of  self?  We 
answer :  its  members  are  citizens  of  the  State,  and 
in  this  latter  capacity  they  demand  protection  at 
the  hands  of  the  government  for  their  every  legiti¬ 
mate  relation  and  pursuit  of  life,  hence  also  for 
their  religious  fellowship  and  exercises.  When¬ 
ever,  therefore,  it  needs  the  protection  of  the  sword, 
it  must  call  on  that  power  to  which  the  sword  has 
been  intrusted  also  for  its  benefit.  Under  no  cir¬ 
cumstances  must  it  constitute  itself  the  State  and 
usurp  the  office  of  the  sword.  No,  not  even  then 
when  the  body  appointed  to  protect  it,  itself  be¬ 
comes  its  oppressor  and  assailant. 

What  in  the  meantime  its  members  may  do  as 
men  and  citizens  is  no  more  nor  less  than  men  gen¬ 
erally  may  do  for  self-protection — what  that  is  and 
is  not,  are  questions  here  irrelevant.  *  The  point 

*“The  speculative  line  of  demarcation,  when  obedience 
ought  to  end,  and  resistance  must  begin,  is  faint,  obscure, 
and  not  easily  definable.  It  is  not  a  single  act,  or  a  single 
event  which  determines  it.  Governments  must  be  abused 
and  deranged,  indeed,  before  it  can  be  thought  of;  and  the 


8. 


LIMITS  AND  POWERS  OF  ACTION. 


133 


which  concerns  us  now  is,  that  the  Church,  as  such, 
has  no  right  ever  to  seize  the  reigns  of  government 
or  transform  itself  into  an  army  after  the  manner 
of  this  world.  If  it  does  this,  it  leaves  its  own  God- 
appointed  sphere. — A  Quaker,  so  the  story  runs, 
once  upon  a  time  was  asked:  “  Friend,  is  it  true 
that  when  a  man  smite  thee  on  thy  right  cheek 
thou  art  to  turn  to  him  the  other  also  ?” — “  Even 
so,”  answers  the  Quaker.  Barely  had  he  made  an¬ 
swer,  when  he  was  smitten  on  his  right  cheek ; 
then,  true  to  his  teaching,  he  held  out  the  other 
also  and  received  the  second  blow.  Thereupon  our 
hero  continued :  “  Further  the  Scripture  sayeth 
not!”  and  so  saying,  he  pounced  upon  the  scoffer 
and  in  a  manner  pommeled  him  that  it  must  have 
never  occurred  to  him  again  to  test  a  Christian’s 
sincerity  of  belief.  And — quid  haec  fabula  docet? 
This,  that  what  the  law  forbids  us  to  do  at  one  time 
and  in  one  sphere  it  may  allow  us  to  do  at  another 
time  and  in  another  sphere. 

Non-interference  with  itself  by  no  one,  and 

prospect  of  the  future  must  be  as  bad  as  the  experience  of 
the  past.  When  things  are  in  that  lamentable  condition,  the 
nature  of  the  disease  is  to  indicate  the  remedy  to  those  whom 
nature  has  qualified  to  administer  in  extremities,  this  crit¬ 
ical,  ambiguous,  bitter  potion  of  a  distempered  state.  Times, 
and  occasions,  and  provocations,  will  teach  their  own  lessons. 
The  wise  will  determine  from  the  gravity  of  the  case;  the 
irritable,  from  sensibility  to  oppression ;  the  high-minded, 
from  disdain  and  indignation  at  abusive  power  in  unworthy 
hands;  the  brave  and  bold,  from  the  love  of  honorable  dan¬ 
ger  in  a  generous  cause ;  but,  with  or  without  right,  a  revo¬ 
lution  will  be  the  very  last  resource  of  the  thinking  and  the 
good.” — Burkt’s  Works ,  Vol.  V.,  p,  73. 


134 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


non-interference  by  itself  with  no  lawful  order  of 
existence,  must  ever  continue  to  be  the  policy  and 
practice  of  the  Church  if  it  will  be  dutiful  and 
prosperous  in  its  work.  Its  place  in  the  world  and 
its  office  are  definitely  fixed,  and  they  are  peculiar. 
As  it  expects  to  do  its  own  wrork  and  do  it  without 
leave  or  hindrance  of  each  and  every  body  offic¬ 
ious,  it  behooves  it  to  remember  that  there  are 
many  things  to  be  done  on  earth  which  it  has  no 
call  and  no  right  to  do.  Here  again  it  is  taught  and 
it  teaches  that  u  there  are  differences  of  admini¬ 
strations”  and  “  diversities  of  operations.”  These 
are  indeed  all  found  in  the  State  or  in  the  Church; 
but  they  are  not  necessarily  of  the  State  or  of  the 
Church;  that  is,  they  are  in  a  measure  private, 
but  legitimate  all  the  same. 

We  have  in  view  here  those  divers  branches  of 
industry  and  of  the  professions — those  manifold  vo¬ 
cations  and  stations  by  reason  of  which  citizens  and 
church-members  are  again  and  subordinately  class¬ 
ified.  There  is  the  business  of  the  farmer  and  the 
dealer  in  produce,  of  the  merchant  and  the  me¬ 
chanic,  of  the  artisan  and  the  artist,  of  the  broker 
and  banker,  of  the  lawyer  and  statesman,  and  of 
hundreds  more.  Now  some  of  these  pursuits  are 
very  attractive,  and  all  may  be  more  or  less  lucra¬ 
tive — and  churches  desire  to  be  attractive,  and 
they  need  money.  Now  what  if  they  were  to  go 
into  business  of  the  same  sort,  would  not  that  be  a 
powerful  auxiliary  to  its  general  work  in  more 
ways  than  one?  Possibly  it  might;  but  most  likely 
it  would  not  prove  a  help.  Be  that  as  it  may,  we 
are  convinced  that  any  and  every  such  movement 


§8. 


LIMITS  AND  POWERS  OF  ACTION. 


135 


or  enterprise  is  wrong,  decidedly  wrong,  and,  as  a 
policy,  most  unwise  and  ruinous. 

The  Church  has  no  need,  no  call,  no  business, 
whatever  to  turn  farmer,  tradesman,  speculator, 
politician,  distributor  of  prizes,  comedian,  cook  and 
caterer,  or  anything  of  the  kind,  no  matter  how 
excellent  the  opportunities  and  how  golden  the 
prospects  may  appear.  But,  say  you,  is  not  the 
Church  a  society?  if  so,  why  can  it  not  appropri¬ 
ately  engage  in  things  becoming  a  society?  We 
answer:  true,  it  is  a  society;  but  it  is  a  society  of 
a  distinctive  character  and  for  a  well  specified  pur¬ 
pose.  It  has  a  God-given  purpose  and  character. 
Its  business  is  not  to  entertain  and  serve  people 
with  a  view  to  popularity  and  money-making.  It 
is  a  religious  society;  and  in  consistency  with  its 
name,  nature,  and  calling,  it  must  do  the  work  as¬ 
signed  to  it — it  must  do  nothing  more  than  such 
things  as  are  necessitated  by  its  calling  and  which 
at  the  same  time  can  be  attended  to  in  no  other 
than  a  churchly  capacity.  Business  speculations, 
fairs,  theatricals,  lotteries,  suppers,  dances  and  en¬ 
tertainments  of  such  sort — say  that  they  were  in¬ 
nocent  in  themselves  and  properly  conducted — 
they  are  things  unbecoming  a  church  because  this 
is  more  than  a  mere  human  institution:  it  is,  if  it 
be  a  church  at  all,  in  its  chief  and  best  part,  a 
body  spiritual;  and  to  drag  whatever  belongs  to 
other  spheres  of  being  and  life  into  its  own,  is,  to 
say  the  least,  an  incongruity.  We  read  that  Jesus 
“cast  out  all  them  that  sold  and  bought  in  the 
temple,  and  overthrew  the  tables  of  the  money¬ 
changers,  and  the  seats  of  them  that  sold  doves, 


136 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


and  said  unto  them,  It  is  written,  My  house  shall 
be  called  a  house  of  prayer,  but  ye  have  made  it  a 
den  of  thieves.”  Now  it  would  seem  to  us  that 
whatever  things  desecrate  the  place  of  worship  can¬ 
not  possibly  be  things  proper  for  the  worshipping 
body — the  Church  as  such . 

Nor  is  the  plea  that  the  Church  must  have 
money,  an  excuse  for  its  stepping  out  of  its  sphere 
of  action  in  order  to  acquire  it.  The  fact  that  it 
needs  protection  does  not  authorize  it  to  turn 
State ;  and  the  fact  that  it  needs  money  no  more 
entitles  it  to  go  into  business  for  the  purpose  of 
money-making.  And  there  is  no  real  need  of  this. 
The  members  of  the  Church  as  members  of  the 
general  community  have  their  appropriate  call¬ 
ings,  and  within  these  it  is  in  their  place  to  ac¬ 
quire  the  money  needed  for  their  personal  uses: 
for  their  families,  for  the  State,  and  for  the  Church, 
as  well  as  for  themselves.  From  the  funds  thus 
acquired,  the  Church  has  the  full  right  of  an  ade¬ 
quate  support.  As  a  rule,  at  least,  its  revenues 
should  consist  of  moneys  personally  acquired  and 
freely  contributed  by  its  own  members. 

The  wisdom  of  abstaining  from  all  allotria  may 
be  made  apparent  from  this,  that  whatever  is  gained 
by  doubtful  measures  is  likely  to  be  of  a  doubtful 
character  and  advantage.  On  the  other  hand,  we 
are  sure  that  the  officious  demeanor  and  meddle¬ 
some  proceedings  indulged  in  by  so  many  churches 
in  our  day  are  exceedingly  offensive  to  a  large  class 
of  the  people  ;  the  consequence  is  that,  on  that  very 
account,  many  are  filled  with  prejudice  against  re¬ 
ligion,  with  dislike  of  the  Church,  and  quite  nat¬ 
urally  they  stand  aloof. 


§8. 


LIMITS  AND  POWERS  OF  ACTION. 


137 


To  many,  no  doubt,  the  grounds  here  taken 
smack  of  ultraism.  Be  it  remembered,  however, 
that  we  are  treating  of  principles — we  are  concerned 
about  rules  and  not  exceptions.  Moreover,  our 
present  question  is  one  of  order,  and  order  must 
always  yield  more  or  less  to  necessity.  Then,  the 
disregard  of  order  is  considered  too  much  in  the 
nature  of  a  very  trifling  offense,  if  as  an  offense  at 
all — especially  in  so  far  as  it  is  not  resented  by  any 
law  of  the  land.  Lastly,  we  consider  the  matter  of 
order  as  too  important  to  be  treated  with  less  rigor. 
Our  happiness  depends  largely  on  this  that  men 
and  bodies  of  men  know  their  proper  places  in  this 
world,  and  knowing  them,  that  “each  in  his  station 
move”  and  none  trespass  on  forbidden  ground. 

In  the  application  of  the  principles  above  ad¬ 
vocated,  it  will  be  found  very  difficult  in  some  cases 
to  point  out  the  exact  line  of  demarcation  existing 
between  the  various  spheres  of  human  activity — to 
say  what  belongs  here,  what  there;  who  is  to  do 
this,  who  that.  Education,  as  we  have  seen,  is  an 
example  of  such  things.  For  the  present  suffice  it 
to  say  that,  as  the  State  has  the  right  and  duty  to 
demand  the  education  of  the  youth  of  the  land, 
likewise,  and  for  similar  reasons,  has  the  Church 
the  right  and  duty  to  insist  upon  the  education 
of  the  youth  within  its  fold.  Who  is  the  party 
originally  called  to  educate,  and  then,  to  whom  this 
may  properly  assign  the  work,  will  be  a  subject  for 
separate  consideration  farther  on. 

To  resume  and  to  give  a  resume  of  what  has 
been  said  about  the  boundaries  of  churchly  activity, 

it  will  be  noticed  that  also  here  as  elsewhere  the 
6* 


138 


THE  CHURCH. 


II. 


real  question  is  not  what  things  come  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Church  and  which  not,  but  what 
action  it  is  to  take  with  regard  to  them.  In  one 
respect  its  field  is  very  wide,  in  fact,  extends  over 
every  body  and  over  all  things  ;  in  another,  again, 
it  is  comparatively  narrow  and  limited.  This  is 
explained  by  the  duality  of  its  nature  and  the  corn- 
sequent  duality  of  its  mode  of  operation.  In  the 
first  place,  it  is  to  evangelize  all  men  and  to  sanctify 
all  relations  of  life  and  the  use  of  all  things  :  in  this 
its  aspect,  its  domain  is  the  world.  But  to  do  this 
it  must  be  socially  constituted  and  active ;  and  in 
this  view  of  its  province,  its  operations,  in  the  sec¬ 
ond  place,  must  be  confined  to  those  things  which 
belong  and  pertain  to  it  as  a  distinctive  society. 
If  we  agree  to  distinguish  its  two  modes  of  actions 
by  calling  the  one  the  spiritual  and  the  other  the 
ecclesiastical,  we  can  say  that  it  has  a  spiritual 
work  to  perform  with  regard  to  every  person  and  all 
things — and  that  only  with  spiritual  forces;  ecclesi¬ 
astical  actions  only  with  regard  to  itself,  however, 
as  a  society  humanly  constituted  and  to  be  humanly 
governed.  Again,  and  the  same  thought,  only  in 
other  words  :  with  the  power  of  divine  truth  it  is  to 
influence  everything  and,  if  possible,  bring  every¬ 
thing  into  its  true  relation  with  God ;  with  the 
powers  it  has  as  a  society  it  must  do  nothing  but 
what  is  called  for  by  the  direct  object  of  its  external 
associate  existence.  Accordingly,  there  are  many 
things  it  is  not  permitted  to  do,  but  it  is  called  to 
sanctify  their  doing;  and  there  are  many  things 
it  must  not  want  to  possess  and  control,  but  it  is 
true  to  its  calling  when  it  seeks  to  sanctify  their 


8. 


LIMITS  AND  POWERS  OF  ACTION. 


139 


possession  and  control  by  others  unto  God.  There 
are  many  evils  and  improprieties  in  the  world 
which  it  must  never  attempt  to-suppress  or  correct 
by  force  as  of  its  own,  even  if  it  has  all  the  power 
to  do  so;  but  if  it  can  extirpate  them  by  preaching 
and  teaching  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  it  does  its  whole 
duty.  For  an  apposite  illustration  we  refer  to  the 
exemplary  behavior  of  Paul  in  the  case  of  Onesi- 
mus,  the  slave  of  Philemon. 

Within  its  own  sphere  the  Church,  by  right,  is 
free  and  sovereign  in  the  matter  of  government. 
However,  it  must  defer  to  the  State  and  conform  to 
the  laws  of  the  land  in  which  it  exists — that  is,  so 
long  as  nothing  is  demanded  of  it  contrary  to  the 
will  of  its  Master;  in  this  event  it  is  to  “obey  God 
rather  than  men,”  irrespective  of  all  consequences. 
Though  the  Church  is  complete  and  completely 
furnished  in  itself  and  for  itself,  yet  is  it  not  wholly 
independent.  Being  in  the  world  as  yet,  it  must 
rely  for  one  thing  or  the  other  on  one  or  the  other 
divinely  ordered  estate  :  on  human  government  for 
protection,  on  human  industry  for  support,  on  hu¬ 
man  research  etc.  for  assistance.  It  is  the  will  of 
God  that  it  should  be  so ;  not  that  the  Church 
make  anything  human  a  ground  whereon  to  build 
and  an  object  wherein  to  trust,  but  an  instrument 
in  the  hands  of  its  only  Confidence— the  ever  pres¬ 
ent  Lord  of  might  and  goodness — whereby  He  is 
pleased  to  provide  for  it  as  for  His  Well-beloved 
among  men. 


140  THE  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION.  III. 


III.  THE  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION  OF 
THE  STATE  AND  THE  CHURCH. 


PRELIMINARY'  EXPLANATION. 


There  are  relations  existing  between  man  and 
man,  whether  taken  singly  or  collectively,  into 
which  he  is  created;  and  there  are  relations  into 
which  he  enters  of  his  own  accord.  The  former  are 
inherent  in,  and  inevitably  result  from,  his  origin 
and  nature ;  the  latter  depend  on,  and  are  brought 
about  by,  his  own  free  act.  For  example,  whether 
they  will  or  not,  men  and  men  are  fellow-creatures; 
children  of  the  same  parent — in  the  kingdom  of 
grace  as  well  as  in  the  kingdom  of  nature — are 
brothers  and  sisters:  relationships  such  as  these 
God  Himself  establishes  and  establishes  creatively. 
But  when  men  sustain  other,  and  at  times  closer, 
relations  than  these,  such  as  that  of  companions,  of 
associates  in  business,  of  fellows  to  the  same  society, 
of  husband  and  wife,  etc.,  these  are  connections  of 
men’s  own  making,  be  it  with  or  without  the  di¬ 
rection  and  approval  of  God. 

Ralph  and  Rachel  are  fellow-creatures.  But 
there  is  every  indication  that  they  desire  to  become 
more  to  each  other  —  indications  foreshowing  that 
they  will  become  husband  and  wife.  Admitting 
that  the  consummation  of  their  union  is  perfectly 


8. 


PRELIMINARY. 


141 


lawful  before  both  God  and  man,  is  it  also  expedi¬ 
ent?  Will  God  and  men  approve  ?  These  are  the 
all-important  questions  in  matters  wherein,  by  law, 
we  have  liberty  to  do  or  not  to  do,  as  will  be  best 
for  us.  In  the  case  before  us:  if  there  is  anything 
in  names,  we  would  have  Rachel  fore-warned  if  not 
dissuaded ;  and  with  Ralph  we  would  expostulate ; 
for  we  are  all  aware  that  lambs  never  fare  well  in 
the  company  of  wolves.  However,  names  alone 
cannot  be  allowed  to  decide  here  since,  like  their 
fair  bearers,  they  are  often  chosen  more  for  their 
beauty  than  for  their  good  sense.  But  there  may 
be  many  other  and  more  weighty  reasons  why 
Ralph  and  Rachel  should  not  be  made  husband 
and  wife;  possibly,  too,  there  may  be  good  reasons, 
and  none  to  the  contrary,  why  they  should  be 
wedded.  Be  this  as  it  may,  certain  it  is  that  the 
mere  lawfulness  of  their  alliance  alone  does  not  fur¬ 
nish  a  sufficient  argument  showing  that  it  ought  to 
be  effected.  Lawfulness,  here,  is  after  all  only  one 
hindrance  removed  and  no  positive  evidence.  Mar¬ 
riage  is  not  an  affair  wholly  to  be  determined  on 
by  law  and  love ;  reason  and  expediency  must  also 
be  consulted  as  best  they  can.  We  are  persuaded 
that  where  the  law  permits  and  love  commands, 
but  reason  and  expediency  plainly  and  unmistaka¬ 
bly  forbid,  there  it  is  an  act  of  wisdom  to  abstain. 

Somewhat  similar  is  the  question  before  us 
now  with  regard  to  the  relation  of  the  State  and 
the  Church.  There  is  one  relation  between  them 
in  virtue  of  their  creation  and  therefore  to  be  dis¬ 
cerned  from  their  respective  natures ;  into  this  God 
Himself  has  placed  them.  Then  there  are  possible 


142  THEIR  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION.  III. 


other  relations,  such  as  that  of  a  marriage,  and  into 
which  they  might  enter  by  mutual  agreement. 
About  the  wisdom  of  the  first,  there  can  be  no 
doubt ;  but  the  wisdom  of  any  farther  and  closer 
relations  is  a  matter  of  grave  dispute.  In  the  pres¬ 
ent  and  the  following  parts  of  our  treatise  we  pro¬ 
pose  to  discuss,  in  the  present :  the  nature  and  the 
wisdom  of  their  relation  as  God  has  ordained  it  (§  9- 
10)  ;  and  then  in  the  following  :  the  question  of  any 
humanly  ordered  relation ,  and  ivhat  may  he  said  in  its 
favor  or  disfavor.  (§  11-12). 

* 

§  9.  THE  STATE  AND  THE  CHURCH  ARE  TWrO  DIS¬ 
TINCT,  BUT  NOT  ANTAGONISTIC,  BODIES. 

There  are  many  important  features  which  can 
be  predicated  in  the  same  words  and  at  the  same 
time  of  both,  the  State  and  the  Church.  They  are 
dominions  of  divine  origin,  peopled  with  human 
beings,  and  their  ultimate  objects  are  the  good  of 
mankind  to  the  glory  of  God.  This  would  seem  to 
indicate  identity;  but  notwithstanding  this  generic 
similarity  there  is  a  specific  difference.  A  closer 
view  reveals  to  us  the  facts  that  the  one  is  estab¬ 
lished  by  God  as  the  Creator  and  is  therefore  pre¬ 
eminently  a  dominion  of  His  creative  power  and  of 
providential  wisdom  and  goodness.  The  other  is 
established  by  God  as  the  Redeemer,  and  is  there¬ 
fore  a  kingdom  in  which  His  grace  and  sanctifying 
power  especially  preponderate.  Then,  the  one  is 
peopled  with  human  beings  as  such,  the  other 
with  human  beings  only  as  Christians.  Further¬ 
more,  the  true  happiness  of  the  entire  man — man’s 


143 


9.  DISTINCT,  NOT  ANTAGONISTIC. 


everlasting  salvation — is  the  ultimate  object  of  the 
one,  and  that  only,  in  the  intent  of  God  and  by  His 
overruling  chiefly  ;  that  is,  it  is  not,  and  is  not  to 
be,  the  direct  and  declared  object  of  the  State  as  it  is 
and  is  to  be  the  immediate  and  stated  object  of  the 
Church.  Then,  too,  the  kingdoms  of  this  world 
come  and  go,  one  following  the  other  quite  often  in 
quick  succession,  until  the  end  of  time  when  this 
earth  and  with  it  its  kingdoms  shall  pass  away  as 
orders  for  which  there  can  be  no  farther  use ;  but 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,’ though  as  to  its  external 
vesture  and  appointments  it  undergo  changes  like¬ 
wise,  itself  shall  abide  forever  in  perfected  glory  as 
the  kingdom  of  God  and  of  His  people. 

From  considerations  such  as  these  it  follows 
conclusively  that  the  State  and  the  Church,  by  rea¬ 
son  of  their  created  natures,  their  purposes  and 
their  destinies,  respectively  are  two  entirely  differ¬ 
ent  bodies.  Each  has  an  individuality  of  its  own 
and  distinct  from  that  of  the  other.  They  are  no 
single  entity  with  perhaps  a  double  mode  of  exist¬ 
ence,  manner  of  operation,  etc.  Now  since  God 
Himself  has  made  them  what  they  are  in  their  real 
natures,  they  are  by  divine  act  two  distinct  orders 
of  being.  Whether  it  be  the  divine  will  that  they 
be  merged  into  one,  subsequent  to  their  creation 
into  essentially  different  and  separate  beings,  re¬ 
mains  to  be  seen.  For  the  present  we  hold  fast  to 
the  all-important  fact  just  established.  From  this 
it  follows  that  he  who  is  a  citizen  of  the  State  is,  on 
that  account,  not  a  member  of  the  Church  ;  on  the 
other  hand,  he  who  is  a  member  of  the  latter  is  in¬ 
deed  also  a  citizen  of  the  former,  not  by  virtue  of 


144  THEIR  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION.  III. 


his  Christianity,  however,  but  in  view  of  his  hu¬ 
manity.  In  like  manner,  and  by  the  same  reason¬ 
ing,  the  State  includes  the  Church  and  encompasses 
it,  but  not  as  an  integral  part  of  itself ;  that  is,  the 
Church  is  within  the  State  locally  but  it  is  not  of 
the  State  essentially,  no  more  is  it  than  the  Chris¬ 
tian  who,  though  in  the  world,  is  of  it.  As  a  part 
of  the  State,  the  Church  could  only  be  considered 
with  respect  to  one  side  of  its  existence  perhaps, 
i.  e.  the  humanly  organized.  “Neither  does  the 
Church  visible  desire  to  be  a  part  of  the  State,  no, 
not  even  the  determining  factor  in  it;  but  it  desires 
to  be  itself  constituted  a  kingdom  of  a  peculiar  kind 
which  indeed  must  be  in  this  world  but  will  not  be 
of  it;  it  can  therefore  no  more  dissolve  and  merge 
with  the  State  than  the  State  can  ever  be  converted 
into  it,  for  the  object  of  the  State  is  purely  earthly, 
that  of  the  Church  purely  spiritual,  it — the  Church 
— knows  itself  simply  as  an  institution  (?)  called 
to  educate  (Erziehungs-Anstaldt)  humanity  for  the 
supra-mundane  kingdom  of  God  into  which  itself 
is  to  be  merged  at  the  consummation  of  all  things. 
The  Church  has  thus  restored  to  the  divine  its  in¬ 
dependent  significance  and  freedom,  but  at  the 
same  time  liberated  the  State  from  its  subordina¬ 
tion  to  the  domination  of  a  national  cultus.” — 
( Geffken ,  Staat  und  Kirche^p.  49). 

The  human  body  and  the  human  soul  are 
different  substances,  but  they  are  creatively  and 
therefore  divinely  conjoined  into  one  personality. 
We  have  just  pointed  out  that  the  State  and  the 
Church  are  not  so  conjoined,  but  rather,  that  they 
are  created  distinctively  and  separately.  Now  the 


9. 


DISTINCT,  NOT  ANTAGONISTIC. 


145 


idea  that  God  should  declare  things,  to  which  He 
has  thus  given  distinct  natures  and  separate  exist¬ 
ences,  to  be  one  and  the  same  thing,  is  preposter¬ 
ous  and  unworthy  of  a  moment’s  consideration. 
The  next  question  therefore  is,  whether  there  be 
given  any  divine  order  for  their  commixture  or  for 
their  union  into  one  body.  If  there  were,  it  would 
have  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures  as  the  only 
revelation  of  God’s  will ;  but  no  such  order  can 
there  be  pointed  out.  On  the  contrary,  everything 
there  said  and  having  any  bearing  on  this  matter 
only  confirms  their  distinctive  characters,  and  for¬ 
bids  their  fusion  even  in  conception.  When,  for 
instance,  the  Lord  says  of  His  kingdom  that  it  is 
not  of  this  world,  the  whole  context  goes  to  show 
that,  among  other  things,  His  kingdom  is  not  the 
State  and  in  no  way  to  be  identified  with  it. — Men 
who  prefer  mules  to  horses  and  asses  may  have  the 
liberty  to  indulge  their  freakish  preferences  by 
mixing  these  different  species  in  order  to  secure 
their  favorite  mongrel;  but  men  have  not  the 
liberty  to  so  mix  the  spiritual  and  earthly,  the 
Church  and  the  State,  that  as  a  consequence  all 
distinctions  existing  between  citizens  of  the  one 
and  citizens  of  the  other  be  wiped  out  or  lost  to 
view.  Samaritan  products,  such  as  must  result 
from  a  fusion  of  things  civil  and  religious,  are  be¬ 
yond  all  doubt  an  abomination  to  the  Lord — and  a 
curse  to  the  race. 

Seeing  that  we  have  to  do  with  two  entirely 
different  creations  of  God,  and  that  they  are  placed 
side  by  side  on  earth,  which  is  the  more  important , 
and  which  is  the  higher  authority?  The  Church,  as 
7 


146  THEIR  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION.  III. 


heretofore  shown,  has  for  the  object  of  its  existence 
and  activity  the  whole  of  man,  and  of  all  he  is, 
has  and  does,  but  with  reference  to  his  highest  life- 
relation — his  direct  relation  to  God.  The  State 
has  to  deal  with  man  and  the  affairs  of  man  only 
in  part,  and  then  only  in  so  far  as  his  earthly  in¬ 
terests  are  concerned.  Now,  since  man’s  relation 
to  his  God  is  of  a  higher  order,  and  includes 
even  his  relation  to  his  fellow-men  and  to  earthly 
things  in  general,  the  Church  from  this  point  of 
view,  stands  far  above  the  State.  The  ministry  of 
the  one  is  to  sanctify  and  save  man  in  soul  and  in 
body ;  the  ministry  of  the  other  is  to  protect  him 
in  his  outward  relations,  actions,  possessions — to 
prosper  him  in  his  earthly  calling.  Harm  to  the 
soul  invariably  involves  harm  to  the  body;  for  a 
sinful  soul  is  the  source  of  all  its  sorrows.  Injury 
done  the  body,  however,  is  not  necessarily  hurtful 
to  the  soul :  this  may  live  and  be  happy  even 
while  the  other  is  tortured  and  destroyed.  Every 
way  we  compare  them,  the  body  bringing  to  us 
salvation  does  us  greater  and  more  valuable  service 
than  does  the  body  appointed  for  our  protection  in 
things  earthly.  Nevertheless,  to  argue  from  their 
relative  importance  to  their  relative  authority  is 
not  at  all  a  safe  way  of  reasoning. 

The  conclusion  that  the  Church  must  have 
the  power  and  right  to  control  the  State,  because  it 
is  the  more  important  of  the  two,  is  a  Romish  par¬ 
alogism — a  fallacy  so  glaring,  that,  though  it  may 
do  honor  to  a  shrewd  pontif,  an  ordinary  freshman 
would  be  ashamed  to  perpeprate  it.  But  the  pon¬ 
tif  finds  it  serviceable,  if  it  is  not  logical;  and  that 


147 


DISTINCT,  NOT  ANTAGONISTIC. 


is  the  main  thing.  As  a  smart  bridge-builder, 
what  does  he  care  about  logic  anyway,  or  truth 
even  :  his  view  serves  admirably  to  bridge  the  way 
for  “saints”  to  become  the  masters  of  “sinners” 
and  then  for  the  greatest  “saint”  to  be  made  mas¬ 
ter  in  chief.  According  to  this  peculiar  idiocracy 
of  the  papal  hierarchy,  the  worthy  president  of  the 
United  States  is  not  the  chief  executive,  de  jure , 
as  we  all  suppose — no,  nothing  like  it  unless  he 
possesses  the  charisma  of  Romish  sanctity  and  sanc¬ 
tion,  and  that  sanctity  in  a  higher  degree  than 
any  other  man;  for  “the  more  holy  the  more  im¬ 
portant,  and  the  more  important  the  more  author¬ 
itative,”  and  so  on  until  the  autocracy  of  “holi¬ 
ness,”  that  is  of  church-dom,  is  established.  But 
what  saith  the  Word  of  truth?  When  there  was  a 
strife  among  His  disciples  which  of  them  should 
be  accounted  the  greatest,  the  Lord  said :  “  The 
kings  of  the  Gentiles  exercise  lordship  over  themj 
and  they  that  exercise  authority  over  them  are 
called  benefactors.  But  ye  shall  not  be  so.”  Foolish 
Herod  was  troubled  when  he  heard  of  the  new-born 
King  of  the  Jews;  but  really  there  wTas  not  the 
least  cause  for  fear.  He,  whose  coming  awakened 
such  dismay  and  caused  the  slaughter  of  innocent 
babes  throughout  Judea,  made  no  pretentions  to 
the  throne  of  Herod  or  to  any  other  throne  of  this 
earth.  And  in  this,  as  well  as  in  other  things, 
He  has  left  an  example  to  His  followers,  to  His 
Church. 

The  false  notion  that  the  State  is  to  manage 
also  the  religious  affairs  of  a  commonwealth,  is  an 
old  pagan  leaven;  the  heresy  that  the  Church 


148  THEIR  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION.  III. 


should  dominate  over  the  State  is  an  old  Jewish 
dream ;  but  the  sound  doctrine  that  both  are  dis¬ 
tinct  and  independent  in  their  individual  exist¬ 
ences,  is  decidedly  and  characteristically  Chris¬ 
tian.  The  Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ,  and  later, 
judged  it  as  a  wrong  and  a  disgrace  that  they, 
“the  people  of  God,'’  should  be  subject  to  Roman, 
i.  e.  to  heathen,  rule.  But  Christ  taught  both  Jew 
and  Gentile  to  render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that 
are  Caesar's,  and  unto  God  the  things  that  are 
God’s;  and  thus  He  closely  distinguished  between 
things  religious  and  things  political,  between  the 
authorities  of  the  Church  and  of  the  State.  In  the 
same  spirit  the  Apostles  continued  to  teach,  as 
witness,  for  example,  Paul’s  letter  to  the  Romans, 
cap.  13.  The  fact  is  that  Christianity  has  first  rec¬ 
ognized  the  divinely  established  difference  between 
the  afiairs  of  State  and  of  Church ;  and,  ’tis  a  pity 
and  disgrace  that  those  who  are  so  loud  in  its  pro¬ 
fession  and  even  lay  claim  to  its  exclusive  posses¬ 
sion,  are  so  forward  in  the  denial  of  this  its  char¬ 
acteristic  and  all-important  principle. 

But  in  the  papal  hierarchy  it  cannot  be  other¬ 
wise  so  long  as  it  adheres  to  its  false  conception  of 
the  Church  as  an  essentially  visible  and  legal  in¬ 
stitution.  “The  hierarchy  which  claims  for  the 
constitutional  forms  of  the  Church  the  same  di¬ 
vine  authority  which  it  claims  for  its  doctrine  was 
originally  driven  to  place  it  over  the  State”  —  as 
a  higher  authority  even  in  State  matters — ,  “this 
was  considered  a  purely  earthly,  unholy  power,  a 
thing  profane  and  profaning  (das  Saeculum),  for 
was  not  the  prince  of  this  world  by  the  Scriptures 


149 


DISTINCT,  NOT  ANTAGONISTIC. 


called  a  devil?  ’Twas  only  by  the  consecration  of 
the  Church  to  this,  that  the  power  of  State  first  be¬ 
came  sanctified  and  was  made  a  trustee  for  higher 
ends”  (Geffken  p.  210).  Such  was  and  is  the  dog¬ 
matic  position  of  Rome.*  Accordingly,  civil  and 
religious  liberties  are  moral  impossibilities. 

The  Apostolic  and  Christian  principle  distin¬ 
guishing  between  things  civil  and  religious  was 
again  restored  by  the  Reformation  of  the  16th  cen¬ 
tury,  and  with  it,  theoretically  at  least,  the  dis¬ 
tinction  between  the  State  and  the  Church.  “For¬ 
ever  must  it  be  said  in  praise  of  the  Reformation 
that  by  its  principles  civil  liberty  ....  was  again 
rendered  possible,  and  that  too  in  an  entirely  dif¬ 
ferent  manner  than  was  the  case  in  antiquity 
when  the  civil  greatness  of  a  small  minority  was 


*  Pope  Bonifaeius  VIII.  in  his  famous  Bull  “  unam 
sanctum”  among  other  things  doctrinal,  declares:  Gladius 
est  sub  gladio,  that  is:  the  sword  of  the  government  must 
be  subject  to  the  sword  of  the  Church.  Again :  Subesse 
Romano  pontifici,  omni  humanae  creaturae  declaramus,  di- 
cimus,  definimus  et  pronunciamus  omnino  esse  de  neces¬ 
sitate  salutis.  Accordingly,  subjection  to  the  Romish  pontif 
is  indispensable  to  salvation — no  one  can  be  saved  unless 
he  obey  the  pope. 

But,  though  Romish  in  its  nativity  and  strength,  this 
heresy  is  not  confined  to  the  Church  of  that  name.  It  has 
time  and  again  found  friends  and  advocates  among  Protes¬ 
tants.  When,  for  the  first  time  the  full  extent  and  bearing 
of  his  royal  prerogatives  revealed  themselves  to  his  protes- 
tant  (?)  mind,  James  II.  of  England  is  said  to  have  cried 
out  in  his  own  vernacular  language :  “  Bo  I  mak  the  judges? 
Do  I  mak  the  bishops?  Then,  God  wauns!  I  mak  what 
likes  me,  law  and  gospel  ”  (Hist.  Essays  by  Jno.  Forster ,  I.  227), 
— words  certainly  as  wild  as  ever  spake  the  lips  of -popes. 


150  THEIR  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION.  III. 


based  upon  the  dark  back-ground  of  slavery.  The 
principles  of  freedom  of  conscience  and  of  the  uni¬ 
versal  priesthood,  which  liberate  man  inwardly,  in¬ 
evitably  lead  to  outward  freedom ;  a  people  which 
no  longer  feels,  itself  as  a  mere  obedient  and  ser¬ 
vile  laity  over  against  the  clergy  will  certainly 
no  longer  desire  to  be  an  object  merely  passive 
and  without  rights  over  against  the  government. ” 
Geffken  p.  217).  The  great  Luther,  in  his  plain 
and  fearless  way,  expresses  himself  quite  often 
and  unmistakably  against  Rome.  Among  other 
things,  he  says:  “The  chapter  in  which  the  papal 
authority  is  exalted  above  Caesar’s” — above  the 
authority  of  State — “is  not  worth  a  farthing,  and 
henceforth  such  devilish  insolence  as  requiring  the 
emperor  to  kiss  the  pope’s  foot  or  to  hold  his 
stirrup  must  not  be  again  tolerated,  much  less 
that  he  swear  allegiance  and  subordination  to  any 
popes:  which  to  do,  these  have  arrogantly  re¬ 
quired  as  though  it  were  a  matter  of  right”  (  Werke, 
21,  p.  313  Erl.  Ed .).  The  position  taken  at  that 
time  may  be  expressed  in  the  following  words  of 
the  Church  of  the  Reformation:  “Wherefore,  the 
ecclesiastical  and  the  civil  powers  are  not  to  be 
confounded.  The  ecclesiastical  power  has  its  own 
command  to  preach  the  gospel  and  to  administer 
the  sacraments.  Let  it  not  by  force  enter  into  the 
office  of  another ;  let  it  not  transfer  worldly  king¬ 
doms;  let  it  not  abrogate  the  magistrate’s  laws; 
let  it  not  withdraw  from  them  lawful  obedience ; 
let  it  not  hinder  judgments  touching  any  civil 
ordinances  and  contracts ;  let  it  not  prescribe  laws 
to  the  magistrate  touching  the  form  of  the  State 


§9. 


151 


DISTINCT,  NOT  ANTAGONISTIC. 


,  .  .  .  In  this  way  ours  distinguish  between  the 
duties  of  each  power,  one  from  the  other,  and  ad¬ 
monish  all  men  to  honor  both.”  ( Augustana ,  Art . 
28). 

In  truth,  the  State  and  the  Church  are  bodies 
co-ordinate  in  the  matter  of  authority.  Each  is 
sovereign  in  its  own  domain.  Neither  is  divinely 
charged  to  rule  the  other.  If  in  any  way  one  have 
governmental  authority  at  all  over  the  other,  it  is 
not  the  Church  but  the  State  of  which  this  might 
be  affirmed  with  certain  modifications.  “  In  its 
outward,  earthly  and  civil  relations  the  Church  is 
subject  to  the  State — even  to  the  extent  of  suffer¬ 
ing  wrongs.”  (Dr.  Beck ,  K .  u .  St.  p.  46).  As  a  cor¬ 
poration  and  as  corporately  holding  and  managing 
property  and  being  otherwise  socially  active,  it  is 
under  the  laws  of  the  State  as  fully  as  any  other 
body  of  men  and  as  such  it  is  in  duty  bound  to 
render  obedience.  But  note  well,  not  as  such  but 
only  with  regard  to  its  outward  and  humanly 
established  mode  of  existence  is  it  subject  polit¬ 
ically,  and  this  to  a  very  limited  extent. 

From  the  differences  in  their  respective  founda¬ 
tions,  from  all  the  innate  qualities  of  each,  from 
the  distinctive  character  of  their  respective  mis¬ 
sions  as  of  the  means  furnished  to  each  to  do  its 
work,  from  the  destiny  awaiting  the  one  and  the 
other,  and  lastly  from  the  written  Word,  every¬ 
thing  adduced  and  everything  deduced  combines 
itself  into  one  sublime  and  incontrovertible  testi¬ 
mony  showing  that  their  common  Creator  has  made 
the  State  and  the  Church  to  be  two  distinct  bodies, 
has  Himself  not  conjoined  them  nor  given  com- 


152  THEIR  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION*  III 


mand  for  their  conjunction,  and  has  not  subor¬ 
dinated  the  one  to  the  other,  nor  ordered  that  this 
be  done.  Their  divinely  ordered  relation  is  not 
like  that  subsisting  between  the  human  body  and 
soul ;  neither  is  the  attempt  to  be  made  to  force 
them  into  any  such  connection.  “  What  therefore 
God  hath  joined  together,  let  no  man  put  asunder.” 
That  implies,  in  our  humble  opinion,  that  what 
God  has  put  asunder  let  no  man  put  together. 
The  facts  thus  obtained  lead  us  to  the  momentous 
proposition,  and  force  the  far-reaching  and  all- 
important  inference,  that  personal  prestige ,  advance - 
ment ,  power ,  office,  authority ,  merit ,  dignity ,  etc.  ivithin 
the  domain  of  one  body  are  not  necessarily  to  be  accounted 
such  in  the  other. 

Among  other  things  this  implies  that  opinions 
and  doctrines  strictly  and  exclusively  political  can 
never  rightfully  exclude  a  man  from  church-mem¬ 
bership;  and  that  purely  religious  opinions  and 
convictions  can  never  in  equity  exclude  any  one 
from  citizenship — never  rightfully  in  the  first  case, 
because  the  true  test  of  church-membership  is  di¬ 
vinely  revealed  and  fixed  ;  not  in  equity  in  the  sec¬ 
ond  case  because,  though  humanly  established,  the 
test  of  citizenship  should  not  hang  on  things  be¬ 
longing  only  to  the  sphere  of  religion.  Of  this 
more  hereafter.  Another  practical  application  of 
the  conclusion  arrived  at  may  be  exhibited  as  fol¬ 
lows :  You  may  be  a  most  noble  king,  or  a  most 
illustrious  emperor,  or  even  His  Excellency  the 
President  of  our  own  United  States — all  this  your 
state-dignity  does  not  in  the  least  as  yet  make  you 
a  Christian  and  entitle  you  to  the  most  humble 


9. 


DISTINCT,  NOT  ANTAGONISTIC. 


153 


position  of  the  least  church  in  the  world.  On  the 
other  hand,  you  may  be  a  most  wise  counselor  in 
affairs  of  Church,  a  most  faithful  pastor,  a  most 
eloquent  preacher,  a  bishop  suffragan  or  metropol¬ 
itan,  or,  if  you  will,  the  veritable  “  papa  of  all 
Christendom” — all  your  churchly  prerogatives  and 
honors,  be  they  what  they  may,  cannot  of  them¬ 
selves  invest  you  with  the  least  authority  of  State, 
cannot  even  give  you  a  claim  of  right  to  a  common 
country  squire-ship.  Were  Church  and  State  one , 
we  could  not  so  reason  nor  thus  amuse  ourselves 
at  the  expense  of  either  of  your  State  or  your 
Church  dignity.  Happy  the  people  which  can  here 
laugh  with  us — who  know  that  our  subjects  are  two 
entirely  different  bodies,  and  who  are  in  a  position 
to  enjoy  this  truth  realized,  who  gratefully  enjoy 
the  inestimable  blessing  of  both,  civil  and  religious 
liberty. 

Since  the  State  and  the  Church  are,  by  divine 
appointment,  two  distinct  bodies,  having  different 
but  co-ordinate  jurisdiction,  the  question  arises: 
Must  there  he  on  that  account  any  conflict  between  them  ? 
In  view  of  the  fact  that  they  occupy  a  common  field 
of  operation,  this  is  of  the  utmost  practical  im¬ 
portance.  Now  when  we  bear  in  mind  that  both 
organizations  are  the  creations  of  the  same  wise, 
truthful  and  consistent  Being,  there  can  be  no  an¬ 
tagonism  between  them  such  as  were  in  any  way 
the  effect  of  their  respective  origins,  natures,  pur¬ 
poses  of  existence,  or  the  manner  in  which  each  is 
called  to  do  its  work.  The  true  bodily  interests  of 
mankind,  which  constitute  the  immediate  object 
of  the  one,  cannot  possibly  be  at  variance  with  the 


154  THEIR  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION.  III. 


true  spiritual  interests  of  humanity  which  are  the 
direct  object  of  the  other.  Body  and  soul  are  not 
against  but  for  each  other;  the  true  care  for  the  one 
must  in  the  end  be  the  true  care  for  the  other. 
Otherwise,  man  in  his  essence,  man  in  himself, 
would  be  createdly  divided  against  himself,  which 
is  impossible  and  absurd.  If  in  our  estimation 
temporal  interests  ever  stand  in  the  way  of  the 
heavenly,  we  see  not  aright  and  such  conflict  is 
imaginary;  or,  we  may  rest  assured  that  either  the 
temporal  or  the  heavenly  interests,  or  possibly 
both,  are  such  in  appearance  only  but  in  reality 
false.  So  between  the  bodies  in  charge  of  these 
interests;  there  can  be  no  strife  so  long  as  both 
remain  true  to  their  respective  natures,  strictly 
abide  in  their  appropriate  callings,  seek  to  perform 
each  its  own  task  and  that  in  the  way  directed  and 
with  the  means  assigned  them  by  their  common 
Founder.  “If  however  a  church’s  constitution 
cannot  be  brought  into  accord  with  the  constitution 
of  the  State,  wherever  the  latter  is  not  incompatible 
with  the  essence  of  the  Church ,  then  such  a  church 
must  have  more  or  less  become  estranged  to  the 
essence  of  the  Church.  And  such  a  church  has  no 
divine  right,  under  these  circumstances,  to  require 
the  State  to  conform  its  law  (Recht)  to  its  own 
false  idea  of  law  and  right.  It  has  no  claim  of 
right  in  view  of  which  the  State  were  bound  to 
tolerate  it  as  with  a  constitution  in  conflict  with 
its  own.  Such  a  church  interferes  with  the  State 
in  the  fulfilment  of  the  duties  assigned  to  it.” 
(von  Hoffmann.  Theol.  Eth.  p.  266). 

Warfare  between  them  can  ensue  only  when 


9.  DISTINCT,  NOT  ANTAGONISTIC.  155 


either  or  both  mistake  the  proper  line  of  division 
between  their  respective  domains,  or  when  they 
fail  to  observe  each  its  own  proper  mode  of  action. 
The  repeated  and  disastrous  conflicts  between 
Church  and  State  noted  in  history  are  in  reality 
only  so  many  attempts  of  the  one  to  do,  or  to  do 
away  with,  the  business  of  the  other.  This  at 
least  must  hold  with  respect  to  the  Christian 
Church.  False  religions  and  religious  societies 
there  have  been,  and  are  at  all  times,  which  are  in 
their  foundation  and  doctrine  opposed  to  essential 
principles,  to  necessary  laws,  and  to  particular 
forms,  of  human  government.  Not  so  true  Chris¬ 
tianity  and  the  Church  consistently  holding  and 
practicing  its  precepts.  “  No  form  of  government, 
unless  it  be  a  God-opposing  tyranny,  stands  in  its 
nature  opposed  to  Christianity ;  every  form  can, 
under  given  conditions,  have  a  full  moral  right  to 
exist,  and  therefore  the  Church  is  not  permitted 
to  enter  into  solidary  relations  with  any  form  (of 
government)  in  a  sense  condemnatory  of  all  others. 
Christianity,  from  principle,  keeps  itself  aloof  from 
the  politically  social  domain,  so  much  so  that  in 
all  the  New  Testament  not  a  word  is  found  directed 
against  an  institution  of  that  time  which  most  as¬ 
suredly  stood  in  direct  opposition  to  its  own  spirit, 
to  wit:  slavery.  Before  God,  and  therefore  in  the 
Christian  communion,  there  are  neither  bond  nor 
free,  neither  servants  nor  masters,  and  to  this  doc¬ 
trine  slavery  was  diametrically  opposed  since  this 
denied  to  man  his  personality  and  placed  him  as 
so  much  property  into  the  hands  of  others.  Not¬ 
withstanding  this  the  Apostles  did  not  demand  the 


156  THEIR  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION.  III. 


abolition  of  slavery,  which  could  have  been  effected 
only  by  main  force,  nor  did  they  assist  slaves  to 
escape  by  flight.  They  rather  taught  it  to  be  the 
duty  of  each  to  abide  in  his  calling  and  hence  ex¬ 
horted  the  slaves  to  obedience  and  their  masters  to 
moderation.  The  ground  for  this  is  found  in  the 
fact  that  (to  the  Church)  not  the  outer  but  the 
inner  liberty  was  the  chief  thing — the  converted 
slave  could  be  inwardly  free  and  the  unconverted 
master  could  be  a  slave  to  sin.  But  the  truly  con¬ 
verted  master  could  no  longer  treat  his  slaves  as  a  mere 
piece  of  property ;  he  teas  constrained  to  recognize  in 
him  a  brother  redeemed  with  himself  and  a  member  of 
the  Church  having  equal  rights  with  his  own;  the  in¬ 
ternal  freedom  must  be  inevitably  followed  up  by  the 
external ,  and  thus  has  Christianity ,  ivithout  assailing 
it  directly ,  deprived  slavery  of  its  very  foundation .” 
( Gejfken  p.  56).  Christianity  has  abolished  slavery, 
in  a  manner  peculiar  to  itself,  wherever  it  has  en¬ 
joyed  free  sway. 

Affairs  truly  political  and  affairs  truly  relig¬ 
ious  being  entirely  compatible,  and  there  being  no 
antagonism  possible  between  the  real  missions  of 
the  two  bodies  intrusted  with  them  respectively,  a 
norm  of  action  results  for  the  State  which  may  be 
invariably  followed  with  perfect  safety.  Briefly 
stated  it  is  this  :  Let  the  government  see  to  it  that  in  all 
its  acts  it  be  true  to  itself  and  its  real  calling ;  and  once 
sure  of  that ,  let  it  do  its  work ,  no  matter  whose  religion 
is  interfered  with  or  whose  conscience  is  hurt. 

“  Therefore — says  the  champion  of  our  best  lib¬ 
erties,  Luther — let  the  lawful  powers  exercise  their 
office  freely,  without  hindrance,  and  without  re- 


§  9.  DISTINCT,  NOT  ANTAGONISTIC.  157 


gard  to  the  persons  concerned,  be  they  popes,  bish¬ 
ops,  or  priests:  whoever  is  found  guilty,  let  him 
suffer.  Whatever  the  canon-law  may  have  pre¬ 
scribed  to  the  contrary  is  nothing  more  than  a 
Romish  invention  and  presumption ;  for  St.  Paul 
says  unto  all  Christians :  Let  every  soul — also  the 
pope’s,  I  opine — be  subject  to  the  higher  powers. 
If  a  priest  be  slain  the  whole  land  is  at  once  put 
under  an  interdict ,  why  not  also  when  an  humble 
peasant  is  murdered?  Whence  comes  this  great 
discrimination  between  equal  Christians?  From 
no  other  source  than  that  of  human  imagination 
and  commandment.”  (  Werke ,  21  p.  284  Erl.  Ed .) 
He  thus  insists  that  before  the  law  all  men  be 
treated  alike  and  that  there  be  no  respect  of  persons 
and  estates.  To  be  sure,  the  government  is  bound 
to  honor  the  religious  convictions  and  consciences 
of  men,  and  it  is  most  unwise  not  to  do  this ;  but 
it  must  be  done  with  due  regard  to  the  limits 
within  which  it  can  be  done.  Never  must  con¬ 
science  and  religion  be  allowed  to  answer  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  a  passport  for  wrong-doing.  On  the  other 
hand  it  must  be  remembered  that  a  man  who 
smothers  the  voice  of  his  conscience  commits  moral 
suicide.  Likewise  the  government  which  pays  no 
attention  to  the  consciences  of  its  subjects  commits 
political  suicide.  Conscience  is  to  the  individual 
his  best  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  and  hence  the 
supreme  subjective  authority  in  all  matters  of 
morals  and  religion.  But  this  his  sense  of  right 
and  wrong  constitutes  the  very  foundation  and  life 
of  the  State  and  therefore  it  is  simply  destruction 
of  self  for  it  to  disregard  that  all-important  factor 
in  its  own  existence.  (Compare  §  4.) 


158  THEIR  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION.  III. 


Just  as  little  as  God  has  appointed  the  State  to 
be  the  master  of  the  consciences  and  religions  of  its 
subjects,  no  more  will  He  have  these  things  to 
dominate  over  the  State.  This  is  nowhere  better 
understood  than  in  the  United  States.  “  The 
American  people — says  J.  P.  Thompson — honor  the 
sentiment  of  Peter,  that  ‘  it  is  right  to  obey  God 
rather  than  man;'  and  they  applaud  the  heroic 
protest  of  Luther  at  Worms,  ‘Hier  stehe  ich :  ich 
kann  nicht  anders ;  Gott  helfe  mir  V  But  when  the 
god  set  higher  than  man  is  a  foreign  potentate,  who 
asserts  his  supremacy  over  the  State;  when  the 
conscience  that  claims  to  be  inviolate  is  a  church 
embodied  as  a  political  infallibility,  and  enthroned 
above  all  civil  laws  and  institutions — then  the  peo¬ 
ple  say  :  ‘  Society  has  rights  as  sacred  as  the  rights 
of  conscience.  Government,  no  less  than  religion, 
is  from  God.  Conscience  shall  not  harbor  conspi¬ 
racy  ;  religion  shall  not  foster  revolution ;  your 
pious  devotion  shall  not  plot  our  destruction. ’  ” 
(C.  and  St.  p.  138).  And  again :  “  Though  the 
theory  of  political  society  in  the  United  States 
recognizes  and  guarantees  liberty  of  conscience  as 
one  of  the  primordial  rights  of  man,  yet  no  one 
can  be  permitted  to  use  his  religion  as  a  cover  for 
vices  and  crimes  against  society,  or  for  treason 
against  the  government.  Such  freedom  of  religion 
would  place  the  community  at  the  mercy  of  fanat¬ 
icism  or  superstition ;  would  license  Thuggism, 
and  restore  the  Inquisition.  Though  no  form  of 
religious  belief  or  worship,  simply  as  such ,  can  justly 
be  proscribed  in  a  free  state,  yet  for  reasons  of  pub¬ 
lic  morality,  or  for  the  safety  and  order  of  the 


9. 


DISTINCT,  NOT  ANTAGONISTIC. 


159 


Commonwealth,  the  State  may  forbid  and  punish 
acts  done  in  the  name  of  religion ;  as,  for  instance, 
polygamy  as  practiced  by  the  Mormons,  the  infan¬ 
ticide  of  the  Chinese,  or  the  self-immolation  of 
Hindoo  devotees.  And  upon  the  same  grounds, 
though  not  as  being  in  any  sense  the  agent  of  the 
Church,  or  as  having  any  religious  function,  the 
State  may  enact  laws  for  the  general  welfare,  which 
have  also,  in  other  relations,  the  sanction  of  relig¬ 
ion.”  (Ibid.  p.  18).  “Were  the  laws  dispensed 
with — says  Thomas  Jefferson — whenever  they  hap¬ 
pen  to  come  into  conflict  or  into  collision  with 
somebody’s  conscience  or  with  some  supposed  re¬ 
ligious  obligations,  government  would  be  perpetu¬ 
ally  falling  short  of  the  exigency — it  would  be  an 
utter  failure.  There  are  few  things,  however  sim¬ 
ple,  that  stand  indifferent  in  the  view  of  all  sects 
into  which  the  world  is  divided.” 

The  normative  principle  of  State-action  which 
we  have  thus  deduced  and  here  sought  to  elucidate 
has  been  also  demonstrated  as  eminently  practical, 
especially  in  our  own  land.  The  only  thing  to  be 
regretted  is  that  it  has  not  been  more  rigidly  en¬ 
forced,  more  particularly  against  Mormonism  and 
Jesuitism,  wherever  found;  and  also  against  those 
of  a  pious  anti-bellum  proclivity ;  for  were  these  to 
multiply  and  become  more  of  a  controlling  power 
in  our  land,  this  certainly  would  fare  badly  in  case 
a  war  were  forced  upon  it.  With  a  slight  modifica¬ 
tion,  our  rule  may  also  be  reversed,  thus :  Let  the 
Church  see  to  it  that  in  all  its  acts  it  remain  true  to  it¬ 
self  and  its  divine  calling ,  and  sure  of  this ,  let  it  do  its 
work  and  it  will  not  trespass  upon  any  rights  of  the 


160  THEIR  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION.  III. 


State.  Where  this  rule  is  not  found  practically 
safe,  there  is  not  full  religious  liberty — a  blessing 
to  which  every  one  is  entitled  before  God  and  man. 

The  fact  of  their  diversity  without  contrariety 
as  divinely  ordered,  both  by  the  word  and  the  work 
of  their  Creator,  is  directly  opposed  to  the  Romish 
illusion  according  to  which  the  State  is  to  be  looked 
upon  simply  as  a  department  of  the  visible  Church 
— always  the  Church  of  Rome,  of  course — ;  and  all 
this,  mark  you,  not  by  any  human  arrangement, 
not  by  any  contract,  perhaps,  freely  entered  by 
State  and  Church,  but  by  divine  will  and  ordina¬ 
tion  !  This  invention  constitutes  a  fundamental 
principle  in  its  doctrinal  system  as  well  as  in  its 
polity,  and  Rome  will  nowhere  and  never  rest  un¬ 
til  it  sit  astride  its  hobby.  In  the  close  of  his  lec¬ 
ture,  delivered  at  Munich  April  9,  1861,  J.  J.  J.  von 
Doellinger  tells  his  audience  what  are  the  hopes  of 
Rome.  He  says  :  “  Grecian  mythology  relates  that 
when  a  new  god,  Appollo,  was  to  be  born  a  new 
island,  Delos,  arose  in  the  ocean  in 'order  to  serve 
as  a  birth-place  unto  the  new  god.  We  may  con¬ 
fidently  hope,  that,  whatever  may  come  to  pass, 
the  see  of  Peter  shall  not  want  its  Delos,  and  if  it 
were  to  arise  even  in  mid-ocean.”  We  add,  may 
the  Delos  of  St.  Peter  be  ever  as  mythical  as  was 
the  Delos  of  an  Apollo.  But  Rome  is  the  declared 
enemy  of  religious  and  civil  liberty,  and  hence 
among  all  the  earthly  foes  of  man  the  very  worst 
and  most  despicable.  In  this  it  is,  unbeknown  we 
believe  to  many  of  its  devotees,  a  monstrous  politi¬ 
cal  machine ;  and  such  it  is  much  more  than  any¬ 
thing  deserving  the  name  of  ‘church’.* 


*  Comp.  Gladstone  on  Vaticanism. 


161 


\ 


9.  DISTINCT,  NOT  ANTAGONISTIC. 


In  the  mean  time  our  eminently  Protestant 
position  directs  itself  with  equal  force  against  a 
certain  spirit  of  the  times  which  quite  often  makes 
itself  felt  in  the  captivating  guise  of  Protestantism 
itself.  We  have  in  view  here  that  so-called  “  re¬ 
ligion  of  humanity,”  a  species  of  communism, 
which  has  sought  to  establish  itself  in  ever-vary¬ 
ing  forms  since  1839.  It  would,  if  it  only  could, 
sequester  both  the  Church  and  the  State  and  take 
them  as  a  new,  consolidated  something  into  its 
own  protecting  but  indifferent  hands.  All  this  it 
would  do  by  so  ennobling  (?)  natural  religion  and 
by  so  reducing  the  revealed,  that  between  the  two 
there  should  be  no  difference  and  beyond  *them 
there  should  be  no  necessity  for  anything  better 
and  higher.  The  plain  and  naked  intention  of  the 
whole  movement  is,  of  course,  to  do  away  with  the 
Christian  religion  and  to  enthrone  Reason  —  to 
abolish  once  for  all  especially  “that  hateful  thing, 
the  Christian  Church”  and  have  a  “highly  cul¬ 
tured  State”  take  charge  of  every  interest  of  man. 
But  what  signifies  it?  Only  this,  it  will  like  many 
other  futile  dreams,  pass  away  never  realized — yet 
not  pass  away  until  it  shall  have  fully  demon¬ 
strated  to  the  world  its  utter  vanity  and  frightful 
destructiveness.* 


*  See  Bishop  Harris,  Christ,  and  Civ.  Soc.  p.  117-120. 


7* 


162  THEIR  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION.  III. 


§  10.  THE  STATE  AND  THE  CHURCH  ARE  IN¬ 
DEPENDENTLY  EXISTENT,  BUT  MUTUALLY 

AUXILIARY",  BODIES. 

There  are  people  who  do  not  only  deprecate 
every  thought  of  a  church-state  but  who,  with  un¬ 
due  zeal,  maintain  that  these  two  entities  should 
assume  and  observe  an  attitude  of  utter  indiffer¬ 
ence  with  respect  to  each  other.  They  hold  that 
the  less  notice  the  one  takes  of  the  other,  the 
better  it  will  be  for  both.  The  one  is  for  the  body, 
the}^  say,  and  for  the  things  of  this  life;  the  other 
for  the  soul,  and  for  the  things  of  the  life  to  come. 
Let  the  one  rule  the  body,  the  other  rule  the  soul, 
and  each  rule  without  any  regard  to  the  other.  That, 
to  them,  is  the  short  and  simple  solution  of  the 
Church  and  State-question;  certainly  a  most  super¬ 
ficial  view  of  the  problem  before  us.  Just  as 
though  the  State  had  for  citizens  bodies  without 
souls,  so  that  these  it  could  wholly  disregard;  and 
as  though  the  Church  had  for  its  members  souls 
without  bodies,  and  had  nothing  to  do  with  bodily 
concerns.  No,  thank  you,  kind  sirs!  such  sugges¬ 
tions  are  not  available. 

Others  there  are  who  consider  man’s  politically 
social  life  the  highest,  if  not  the  only  life :  they 
would  have  religion  and  religious  institutions  gen¬ 
erally  dispensed  with  as  bothersome  things  in  more 
ways  than  one.  They  are  things,  they  say,  for 
which  there  is  little,  if  any,  earthly  use;  and  as  to 


10.  INDEPENDENT,  BUT  AUXILIARY.  .  163 


any  heavenly  use — well,  that  is  a  suggestion  out  of 
date  in  an  age  like  ours.  The  insipid  assertion 
that  the  Church  is  of  no  benefit  from  a  social  and 
civil  point  of  view  proceeds  either  from  an  unrea¬ 
sonable  bias  against  religion  or  from  a  want  of 
discrimination  between  it  and  fanaticism  as  the 
cause  of  much  apprehension  and  many  persecu¬ 
tions.  This  as  it  may  be.  It  is  to  be  fervently 
hoped  that  extreme  and  radical  ideas  such  as  these 
will  never  and  nowhere  prevail,  no,  not  for  the 
sake  of  the  State  and  society  itself.  To  all  thus 
inimically  disposed  to  religion  we  give  the  assur¬ 
ance,  founded  on  history  for  its  truthfulness,  that 
for  every  church-edifice  razed  you  will  in  the  end 
be  forced  to  erect  one  asylum  and  two  prisons  ten 
times  more  costly  than  the  building  destroyed ; 
and  then  these  will  not  be  able  to  undo  the  harm 
which  the  Church  —  costing  you  nothing — would 
most  likely  have  prevented. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Church  cannot,  and 
must  not  for  its  own  good,  be  indifferent  with  re¬ 
gard  to  State-affairs.  A  mutual  friendly  recogni¬ 
tion  is  indispensable  to  the  preservation  of  order 
and  peace,  and  to  the  furtherance  of  the  prosperity 
of  both.  They  have  relations  of  common  rights 
and  duties  to  determine  and,  once  rightly  deter¬ 
mined,  faithfully  to  observe.  Nor  need  any  danger 
be  apprehended  from  any  such  recognition  nor 
from  any  inquiry  they  may  make  respecting  their 
reciprocal  rights  and  duties  so  far  as  these  really 
exist.  On  the  contrary,  it  stands  to  reason  that 
the  more  they  understand  each  other,  in  a  certain 
sense,  the  better  are  they  enabled  to  define  the 


164  THEIR  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION.  III. 


actual  distinctions  separating  them  and  then  ac¬ 
cordingly  to  establish  that  relation  which  must 
obtain  if  the  peace  is  to  be  preserved. 

True,  the  one  is  in  no  sense  the  creation  and 
creature  of  the  other :  with  respect  to  each  other 
they  are  self-existent.  They  are  not  correlatives. 
They  are  fellow-creatures,  but  of  entirely  different 
orders.  The  former  fact  is  an  evidence  that  both 
are  useful,  and  that  possibly  the  one  may  be  useful 
to  the  other ;  and  the  latter  fact  is,  at  least,  no 
argument  to  the  contrary.  A  strange  reasoning, 
that,  which  would  make  it  appear  that  these  two 
bodies  which,  for  their  establishment,  appoint¬ 
ments,  powers,  etc.,  are  both  indebted  to  the  same 
wise  and  beneficent  Being,  and  which  have  so 
many  interests  in  common,  must,  for  the  safety 
and  prosperity  of  each,  necessarily  ignore  each 
other.  Because  both  occupy  a  common  ground, 
because  both  have  the  good  of  man  at  heart, 
though  each  in  a  way  its  own,  they  do  have  common 
interests.  For  as  they  are  apart  in  their  natures 
and  immediate  purposes  and  interests,  they  never¬ 
theless  stand  in  need  of  each  other.  Were  this 
not  the  case — did  all  the  concerns  of  the  one  essen¬ 
tially  and  absolutely  exclude  those  of  the  other — 
could  the  one  take  care  of  itself  just  as  well 
whether  or  not  the  other  existed  and  assisted — 
then  and  then  only  might  it  be  urged  with  some 
show  of  reason  that  an  absolute  non-recognition 
were  the  best  policy.  But  we  cannot  so  premise 
and  therefore  not  so  conclude.  To  do  this  we 
would  have  to  stop  thinking,  and  deny  the  plainest 
and  most  obvious  lessons  of  history. 


§  10.  INDEPENDENT,  BUT  AUXILIARY.  165 


Over  against  those  who  preach  the  policy  of 
utter  indifference  we  have  two  propositions  to  offer 
and  we  bespeak  for  them  a  candid  consideration. 
The  first  is : 

THE  STATE  HAS  NEED  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

In  the  minds  of  the  ancient  Greeks  the  State 
was  looked  upon  as  an  ordinance  of  the  gods. 
Social  and  civil  affairs  were  accordingly  most  in¬ 
timately  connected  with  the  worship  of  the  dei¬ 
ties.  They  held  the  wreal  or  woe  of  the  entire 
Commonwealth  to  depend  on  the  pleasure  or  dis¬ 
pleasure  of  the  gods.  This  is  evident  from  the 
religious  devotion  they  accorded  to  Hestia ,  the 
goddess  of  State.  Aware  of  the  fact  that  religion 
and  its  cultus  formed  a  constituent  part  of  its 
nationality,  it  was  considered  incumbent  on  the 
government  not  only  to  protect  religion  but  like¬ 
wise  to  shape  its  cultus  and  itself  officially  to  par¬ 
ticipate  in  its  observance.  No  public  act  of  any 
consequence  was  undertaken  without  first  seeking 
the  favor  of  the  gods — and  because  Socrates  ques¬ 
tioned  their  existence,  as  they  thought,  he  was 
made  to  drink  the  fatal  cup.  Draco,  the  sanguine 
and  severe,  punished  religious  dissent  with  death ; 
Plato  would  have  it  denounced  as  a  crime;  and 
Aristotle  advocated  the  Draconic  principle. 

More  deeply  rooted  even  was  the  religious 

sentiment  in  the  hearts  of  the  ancient  Romans. 

% 

Every  family  had  its  household  gods,  and  these 
were  recognized  as  the  special  family  patrons.  As 
to  public  affairs,  the  fear  of  the  gods  was  the  strong 
band  which  held  together  as  in  one  all  the  diverse 


166  THEIR  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION.  III. 


elements  of  State,  This  being  clearly  understood, 
the  cultus  was  made  altogether  a  matter  of  State. 
In  short:  things  religious  and  affairs  civil  were 
considered  equally  essential  to  government.  The 
same  can  be  affirmed,  in  a  degree  greater  or  less,  of 
every  nation  of  the  past — there  never  was  a  people, 
there  never  was  a  government,  which  discarded  re¬ 
ligion  as  a  thing  worthless  and  hurtful- — except 
you  find  it  in  France  at  the  close  of  the  last  cen¬ 
tury — in  the  days  of  the  Dantonists,  of  Reason, 
and  of  the  guillotine.  When  here  you  are  pleased 
to  show  up  an  exception  to  the  general  rule — 
you  are  welcome  to  it,  and  to  the  best  use  it  can 
be  put. 

“  Experience” — says  Dr.  Beck — “by  which  the 
State  is  largely  governed,  teaches  that  without  re¬ 
ligion  there  can  be  no  State,  nothing  but  hordes 
and  factions.  The  foundations  of  States  are  laid 
by  the  laying  of  religious  foundations:  State  des- 
solations  and  the  decay  of  religion  are  simulta¬ 
neous  occurrences;  such  is  the  teaching  of  history 
and  such  lies  also  in  the  nature  of  things.  With 
the  absolute  authority  also  all  relative  authority 
in  man  and  exercised  by  him  with  respect  to  man, 
gradually  falls.  With  the  holy  fear  or  awe  of  God, 
as  the  supreme  Law  and  Lawgiver,  passes  away  at 
the  same  time  all  respect  for  one’s  own  conscience, 
for  man,  and  for  all  human  authority.  Religion 
in  general  is  an  essential  and  vital  condition  of 
State-existence,  and  of  the  fulfilment  of  its  mis¬ 
sion  to  be  a  State  of  men  and  not  of  brutes  (Thier- 
staat).”  (K.  u.  St .,  p.  36.)  “Religion  and  virtue” 
— says  John  Adams — “are  the  only  foundations, 


§  10.  INDEPENDENT,  BUT  AUXILIARY.  167 


not  only  of  republicanism  and  of  all  free  govern¬ 
ments,  but  of  social  felicity  under  all  governments 
and  in  all  the  combinations  of  human  society. 
Science,  liberty,  and  religion  are  the  choicest  bless¬ 
ings  of  humanity  :  without  their  joint  influence 
no  society  can  be  great,  flourishing,  or  happy.” 
By  Christianity,  “for  the  first  time  in  long,  dreary 
ages,  the  masses  of  mankind  were  individualized 
.  .  .  for  it  was  the  distinguishing  peculiarity  of 
Christianity,  that  it  dealt,  not  with  men  in  the 
mass,  but  with  men  as  individuals.  It  taught  the 
great  truth,  that  the  individual  alone  is  the  ethical 
subject.  It  denounced  its  penalties,  and  promised 
its  gracious  rewards  to  the  individual  soul ;  and, 
in  thus  resolving  humanity  into  individuals,  it  set 
in  motion  a  principle  which  was  sure  eventually 
to  work  man’s  political  emancipation.  The  poor, 
the  outcast,  the  oppressed,  became  conscious  of  a 
dignity  and  a  self-determining  power  that  made 
their  life,  even  in  this  world,  altogether  different 
from  what  it  before  had  been.”  (Christ,  and  Civ. 
Soc.  55.) 

However,  what  pertains  to  religion,  pertains 
to  the  Church;  for  these  are  things  inseparably 
connected.  Forcibly,  yet  in  a  way  both  odd  and 
droll,  which  characterizes  the  man — Carlisle  puts 
it  thus :  “  For  if  Government  is,  so  to  speak,  the 

outward  SKIN  of  the  Body  Politic,  holding  the 
whole  together  and  protecting  it;  and  if  all  your 
Craft-Guilds  and  Associations  for  Industry,  of  hand 
or  of  head,  are  the  Fleshly  Clothes,  the  muscular 
and  osseous  Tissues  (lying  under  such  SKIN), 
whereby  Society  stands  and  works; — then  is  Re- 


168  THEIR  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION.  III. 

ligion  the  inmost  Pericardial  and  Nervous  Tissue 
which  ministers  Life  and  warm  Circulation  to  the 
whole/’  ( Sartor  Res .  bk.  II.  cap .  2.) 

Civil  laws,  with  their  rewards  to  the  well-doer 
and  their  penalties  to  the  evil-doer,  can  never  long 
suffice  to  accomplish  the  object  of  the  State  or 
even  to  secure  its  perpetuity.  Resting  merely  on 
their  own  inherent  virtue  they  must,  in  a  great 
measure  if  not  entirely,  fail  properly  to  regulate 
the  actions  of  men;  and  this  because  they  cannot 
possibly  furnish  the  true  motive  or  moral  force  in 
the  hearts  of  the  subjects,  and  which  is  indispens¬ 
able  to  secure  just  and  good  behavior.  That  power, 
therefore,  which  brings  forth  and  fosters  love  and 
respect  for  the  right  and  good, — sentiments  from 
which  both  the  conception  and  enactment  of  all 
good  laws  are  derived  and  on  which  their  faithful 
execution  depends, — must  be  ever  welcome  to  the 
State  as  a  thing  most  useful.  But  that  power  is 
none  other  than  religion,  and  of  this  the  Church  is 
the  nursery. 

The  Church — the  Christian  Church, — has  com¬ 
mitted  to  it  the  ministry  of  God  by  which  alone 
the  morals  of  the  people  can  be  truly  corrected,  de¬ 
veloped  and  strengthened.  It  is  called  and  equip¬ 
ped  to  plant  within  the  human  heart  and  to  culti¬ 
vate  such  graces  as  are  pleasing  to  God,  because 
they  are  of  Him,  and  which  are  calculated  to  bless 
humanity.  “  ’Tis  in  the  Church  where  a  people 
obtains  its  most  noble  culture  ”  says  Luthhardt, 
the  apologist.  Christianity  covers  the  whole  field 
of  religion,  it  includes  all  that  is  true  and  worthy 
in  the  natural.  To  it  the  State  is  indebted  for 


10. 


INDEPENDENT,  BUT  AUXILIARY. 


169 


ideas  of  right  and  for  impulses  unto  good  that  are 
of  incalculable  value  to  the  government  of  the 
human  race.  It  has  introduced  the  age  of  human¬ 
ity  in  the  best  and  noblest  sense  of  the  word.  In 
consequence  of,  and  by,  its  appearance  in  the  world, 
“the  human  race  is  considered  as  one  great  family 
.  .  .  What  are  now  called  ‘the  rights  of  man’  are 
the  fruit  of  Christianity  ...  It  has  indeed  not  forc¬ 
ibly  revolutionized  the  existing  eternal  relations 
and  laws,  customs  and  orders  of  nations ;  but  it 
has  infused  a  new  spirit  into  all  these  life-rela¬ 
tions.  It  has  not  of  a  sudden  abolished  slavery 
externally,  but  it  has  taught  man  to  recognize  the 
slave  as  a  fellow  and  brother,  and  thus  effectu¬ 
ally  undermined  this  institution.  It  has  exalted 
woman  from  the  most  unworthy  to  the  most 
worthy  and  influential  position.  It  has  made  love 
— which,  as  Montesquieu  says,  had  at  the  time  when 
Christianity  first  put  in  an  appearance  a  form  and 
name  which  may  not  be  named — to  the  most  noble 
and  tender  force  of  the  soul  and  spirit-life  of  man. 
In  short,  Christianity  has  become  the  moving 
force  of  a  new  civil  and  intellectual  as  well  as  of 
religious  life  among  men.”  ( Luthhardt ,  Apol.  Vor- 
traege  J. ,  p.  201.)  “A  wonderful  phenomena — says 
Montesquieu — the  Christian  religion  which  appar¬ 
ently  has  for  its  object  the  happiness  only  of  a 
future  life,  at  the  same  time  also  lays  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  man’s  present  happiness.”  (L?  esprit  de  Lois . 
26,  3.)  With  reference  to  the  Christian  Church, 
the  same  author  writes:  “All  great  questions  of  in¬ 
terest  to  mankind,  it  has  suggested;  it  has  deeply 
concerned  itself  about  the  nature  of  humanity  and 
8 


170  THEIR  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION.  III. 


about  all  the  vicissitudes  of  its  destinies.  On  this 
account  has  its  influence  been  so  great  on  modern 
civilization,  greater  than  admitted  by  its  most 
vehement  opponents  and  than  presented  by  its 
most  zealons  defenders. ”  (ib.  xx.  3.)  “Every  epoch 
in  which  faith  predominates,  be  it  under  whatever 
form,  elevates  the  mind  and  heart  and  is  produc¬ 
tive  of  good  for  the  age  present  and  the  age  to 
come.  Every  epoch,  on  the  contrary,  in  which  in¬ 
fidelity,  be  it  in  whatever  form,  claims  a  miserable 
victory  and  of  which  for  the  moment  it  may  seem 
to  be  justly  proud,  soon  passes  away  into  oblivion; 
for  nobody  is  inclined  to  trouble  himself  about  an 
unfruitful  age.”  Such  is  the  admission  of  Goethe , 
the  poet  laureate  of  Germany,  but  as  among  the 
champions  of  religion  certainly  one  of  the  least. 

Even  the  fitful,  doubtful,  miserable,  rational¬ 
istic  and  — !  Jaques  Rousseau  must  add  his  testi¬ 
mony  to  the  common  truth  :  “  Now  it  is  of  great 

importance  to  a  State  that  every  citizen  should  be 
of  a  religion  that  may  inspire  him  with  a  regard 
for  his  duties  .  .  .  The  existence  of  a  powerful,  in¬ 
telligent,  beneficent,  prescient  and  provident  deity; 
a  future  state;  a  reward  of  the  virtuous,  and  a  pun¬ 
ishment  of  the  wicked ;  the  sacred  nature  in  the 
social  contract  and  of  laws :  these  should  be  its 
positive  tenets.  As  to  those  of  a  negative  kind,  I 
would  confine  myself  solely  to  one  —the  forbidding 
of  persecution.”  ( Social  contract ,  bk.  4  cap.  8.)  The 
religion  which  this  radical  writer  has  in  mind  is, 
to  be  sure,  of  a  rather  poor  and  imperfect  sort :  no 
doubt  of  that ;  still  he  is  a  witness  to  the  worth  of 
religion  and  of  the  Church  to  the  State.  All  the 


INDEPENDENT,  BUT  AUXILIARY.  171 


doctrines,  which  he  holds  to  be  of  inestimable 
value  to  the  State,  the  Christian  Church  believes 
and  inculcates  in  their  purity,  and  many  more 
just  as  important  as  those  specified,  even  for  the 
affairs  of  this  life.  The  chief  theory  in  this  con¬ 
nection,  and  therefore  not  to  be  overlooked,  is, 
that  the  doctrines  of  the  Christian  Church  are  not 
natural  and  human  but  divine  truths,  that  they 
are  a  divine  power,  and  the  only  power  given 
under  heaven  which  can  renew  the  heart  and  in¬ 
duce  man  to  lead  a  life  of  justice  and  benevolence 
among  his  fellows.  The  fact  of  this  the  written 
Word  does  not  only  claim  for  itself  in  expression, 
but  is  empirically  established  in  the  souls  and 
lives  of  millions  in  the  history  of  the  world. 

It  must  be  conceded  by  all  that  the  real  Chris¬ 
tian  is  always  a  faithful  citizen.  As  such  he  ap¬ 
proves  himself  under  every  form  of  government. 
“Whatever  makes  men  good  Christians,  makes  men 
good  citizens,1’  says  Daniel  Webster  in  his  Plymouth 
oration.  The  Master  whom  the  believer  serves, 
and  serves  before  all  others,  bids  him  render  unto 
Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar’s,  and  commands 
him  to  pray  for  those  who  are  in  authority;  and 
what  is  thus  required  of  him,  He  enables  him  to 
understand  and  constrains  him  to  do.  Accord¬ 
ingly,  he  will  always  obey  the  laws  even  when 
oppressive  and  exceedingly  irksome — always,  ex¬ 
cept  when  they  are  immoral  and  irreligious.  But 
such  laws  are,  ipse  facto ,  no  laws.  “And  if  the 
misconduct  of  the  powers  of  State  ventures,  in 
arbitrary  determination  and  religious  and  ecclesi¬ 
astical  conduct,  so  far  as  to  determine  against  the 


172  THEIR  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION.  III. 


manifest  and  ecclesiastically  acknowledged  will  of 
God  in  Jesus  Christ,  then  the  Christian  refuses  obedi¬ 
ence.  Acts  5,  29  and  4,  19.  The  Christian  char¬ 
acter  of  the  refusal  will  moreover  consist  in  this, 
that  the  refusal  be  kept  within  the  limits  of  voca¬ 
tion  and  right:  that  petitions,  representations,  and 
complaint  precede  the  renunciation  of  obedience ; 
and  that  the  refusal  of  obedience  is  never  con¬ 
verted  into  an  unlawful  attack  upon  divinely  ap¬ 
pointed  authority,  but  rather  opposes  nothing  to 
the  abuse  of  power  but  the  force  of  justice  and 
self-denying  patience  and  endurance.  The  ground 
for  the  refusal  of  obedience  and  the  divine  authori¬ 
zation,  however,  is  this,  that  the  system  of  the 
earthly  collective  vocation  ministers  in  subordina¬ 
tion  to  the  system  of  the  heavenly  collective  voca¬ 
tion  ;  that  each,  by  virtue  of  its  destination,  has  a 
peculiar  law  for  its  movement  and  accomplish¬ 
ment;  that  the  transferring  of  the  peculiarity  of 
the  one  sphere  to  the  domain  of  the  other,  and  the 
false  super-elevation,  or  indeed  interference,  with 
the  one  order  on  the  ground  of  the  power  of  the 
other,  is  a  confusion  of  the  divine  order  on  earth, 
to  prevent  which,  and  in  every  way  to  do  battle 
with  it,  according  to  the  position  of  his  earthly  voca¬ 
tion ,  every  Christian,  in  his  calling  as  a  Christian, 
has  a  divine  authorization.”  ( Harless  System ,  etc., 
§54.) 

Look  at  it  as  you  will,  and  as  you  can  answer 
for  your  judgment  of  it — as  a  living,  truthful  re¬ 
ality  or  a  delusion — :  this  you  must  admit  that,  so 
long  as  Christianity  inculcates  doctrines  of  the 
kind  referred  to  and  wields  a  corresponding  influ- 


§  10.  INDEPENDENT,  BUT  AUXILIARY.  173 


ence  over  the  hearts  of  men,  it  cannot  exert  any 
but  a  salutary  influence  also  upon  the  development 
of  political  ethics  and  so  purify  and  strengthen  the 
social  and  civil  bonds  of  the  national  body.  To 
say  the  very  least,  the  Church  is  of  the  greatest 
importance  and  benefit  to  the  State.  To  deny 
these  facts  is  as  unreasonable  and  inexcusable  as  it 
were  to  deny  the  beneficence  of  sunshine  and  rain. 
In  a  masterly  arraignment  and  refutation  of  one 
by  the  others  of  the  social  philosophers  respect¬ 
ively  of  Buckle,  Draper  and  Spencer,  Prof.  Martin 
most  truly  and  manfully  vindicates  the  social  and 
political  worth  of  Christianity.  He  says:  “It  is 
unquestionable  that  the  great  reforms  of  political 
life,  and  the  progressive  element  of  public  senti¬ 
ment,  have  found  their  support  in  the  profound 
ideas  of  man’s  spiritual  nature  and  his  immortal 
destiny,  and  in  the  deep  sense  of  obligation  which 
grows  out  of  these.  Throughout  the  historic  and 
especially  the  recent  period,  the  advance  has  been 
not  natural  and  evolutional,  but  characteristically  * 
moral.  It  has  rested  upon  the  great  conception  of 
duty”  ....  “But  these  elevating  influences  de¬ 
rive  their  effective  force  from  the  power  of  divine 
Revelation.  Observed  simply  in  the  structure  of 
the  soul  itself,  they  are  too  dimly  discerned  to  be 
the  guiding  star  of  man’s  life.  But,  spoken  in  the 
ears  of  men  by  the  voice  of  the  Almighty,  they 
are  1  quick  and  powerful.’  They  arouse  our  moral 
nature  from  the  sleep  and  torpor  of  death.  As 
they  pervade  society,  they  impart  a  higher,  holier, 
and  more  vigorous  moral  life.  They  inspire  a  lofty 
enthusiasm  in  doing  good  to  men.  They  awaken 


174  THEIR  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION.  III. 


a  sentiment  of  love  to  the  lowly  and  degraded, 
which  makes  it  a  joy  to  sacrifice  wealth  for  the 
relief  of  poverty  and  the  instruction  of  ignorance. 
Especially  when  presented  in  the  life  and  death  of 
the  Divine  Redeemer,  do  these  lofty  conceptions 
become  effectual  for  the  renovation  and  improve¬ 
ment  of  society.  In  that  great  model  and  ideal  of 
character  to  which  all  the  ‘ends  of  the  earth’  are 
bidden  to  look  ‘and  be  saved,’  they  present  them¬ 
selves  as  the  highest  realities  of  life.  They  search 
and  quicken  the  soul  to  its  profoundest  depths, 
they  awaken  it  to  aspirations  of  benevolence  and 
faithfulness  that  summon  all  our  powers  to  Chris¬ 
tian  activity  ....  and  when  nature  proves  feeble 
and  helpless  to  resist  the  power  of  decay,  society 
shall  find  the  renovation  of  its  life  and  the  solu¬ 
tion  of  all  its  mysteries,  which  if  unsolved  threaten 
to  devour  us,  in  the  Supernatural.  Cut  off  from 
those  ideas  of  God  and  heaven  which  alone  impart 
dignity  to  our  nature,  man  tends  irresistibly  to  in¬ 
dividual  corruption  and  to  social  decay.”  * 

On  the  other  hand,  and  as  the  second  of  our 
propositions, 

THE  CHURCH  HAS  NEED  OF  THE  STATE. 

True,  in  view  of  its  real  essence  and  as  a  body 
spiritually  organized,  appointed  to  a  spiritual  mis¬ 
sion  and  furnished  with  spiritual  means,  the  Church 
is  wholly  independent  of  the  State.  It  is  created 
to,  and  it  can,  exist,  as  at  times  it  has  existed,  inde¬ 
pendently  not  only  but  in  spite  of  the  State.  It  is 


*  Journal  of  Christ.  Philos.  II,  No.  3. 


10.  INDEPENDENT,  BUT  AUXILIARY.  175 


designed  to  perform,  and  it  has  performed,  the  work 
of  its  high  and  holy  calling  whether  favored  or  dis¬ 
favored  by  the  governments  and  agencies  of  this 
world.  Its  enemies  and  persecutors  have  learned 
time  and  again — and  always  at  their  own  cost — 
that  it  is  irrepressible,  indestructible,  and  in  its 
progress  irresistible — they  have  learned  that  “the 
blood  of  the  martyrs  is  the  seed  of  the  Church.” 
That  it  be  and  abide,  that  it  labor  and  labor  not  in 
vain,  is  the  decree  of  its  heavenly  Founder  and 
Protector ;  and  in  things  by  Him  decreed,  no  one 
.  is  able  to  cross  and  frustrate  His  plans. 

The  notion  that  the  Church’s  existence,  course 
and  destiny  are  subject  to  mere  human  caprice,  to 
the  good  or  ill  will  of  men,  to  anything  natural 
and  human,  is  in  the  highest  degree  erroneous  and 
preposterous.  “When  the  principle  is  advanced 
that  Christianity  has  need  of  the  State  that  it  may 
constitute  itself,  and  be,  a  Church,  this  is  done 
upon  two  false  suppositions.  The  one  is  that  the 
Church  is  falsely  preconceived  a  political  Church  ” 
— that  is,  looked  upon  as  a  kind  of  religio-political 
institution  —  “a  conception  which  the  Scriptures 
and  writings  of  all  Christendom  ignore  and  which, 
by  their  exclusion  of  all  carnal  and  worldly  pow¬ 
ers  from  the  sphere  of  faith  and  its  communion, 
they  repudiate.  .  .  .  The  second  false  presupposition 
is,  that  the  State  is  confounded  with  the  common 
intellectual  and  material  means  of  subsistence  of 
which  the  Christian  and  the  Church  of  course 
stand  in  need  inasmuch  as  they  are  in  this  world 
and  a  part  of  its  society.  But  these  means  the 
Christian  Church  has  from  the  very  beginning  pro- 


76  THEIR  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION.  III. 


vided  for  itself  without  the  help  of  the  State,  yea, 
even  against  its  will.”  (Dr.  Beck,  K .  u.  St .  p. 
47).  When  the  great  God  in  His  infinite  grace 
purposes  to  convert  a  man  unto  Himself  and  make 
him  His  own  child,  nothing  on  earth  is  able  to 
resist  His  wTill — nothing  can  prevent  Him,  except 
that  man’s  own  will  by  a  determined  and  persistent 
obstinacy  of  which  it  is  capable.  Again,  when  the 
heavenly  Father  has  begotten  a  child  unto  Him¬ 
self  and  in  His  good  providence  wants  him  to  live 
and  labor  for  Him  on  earth,  He  will  support  him, 
notwithstanding  all  things  opposing.  Even  such 
is  His  relation  not  only  to  the  individual  Christian 
but  to  Christians  collectively.  The  Church  is  de¬ 
pendent  on  God  alone. 

.  But  how  about  the  Church  as  a  human  system 
— as  humanly  constituted  ?  Even  in  this  its  aspect 
it  is  perfectly  able  to  take  care  of  itself,  or,  we  bet¬ 
ter  say,  it  is  altogether  and  well  cared  for  by  its 
Creator.  From  Him  each  member  receives  day  by 
day  all  that  he  needs  not  only  as  a  man  spiritual 
and  having  spiritual  wants,  but  just  as  well  as  a 
man  of  this  earth  and  having  bodily  wants.  And 
from  the  component  you  may  here  again  safely 
reason  to  the  compound,  from  the  member  to  the 
body — the  Church  itself. 

Nevertheless  it  is  true  that  the  Church  has 
need  of  the  State;  nor  is  this  fact  in  contradiction 
with  anything  we  may  have  said  thus  far,  though 
it  so  appear.  God  provides,  alone  and  fully  pro¬ 
vides,  for  His  Church  ;  but  ordinarily  not  in  a  mode 
immediate  and  miraculous.  He  employs  means 
and  instruments,  and  among  these  the  State  is  one. 


10.  INDEPENDENT,  BUT  AUXILIARY.  177 


We  have  seen,  when  speaking  of  this  in  particular, 
that  this  is  an  institution  resting  on  a  divine  foun¬ 
dation,  that  “the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of 
God.”  But  if  divinely  ordained,  certainly  it  must 
be  with  good  reason  and  for  good  purposes.  Thus 
the  State  is  for  good,  for  the  good  of  the  people. 
The  question  here,  therefore,  is :  is  it  for  the  good 
of  a  certain  class  of  people  or  for  all?  for  certain 
orders,  or  for  all  orders  legitimately  existing  ?  is  it 
for  the  good  of  the  Church  also  ?  Most  assuredly  ; 
yea,  we  are  convinced  that  in  the  mind  and  intent 
of  God  it  is  pre-eminently  designed  for  its  benefit. 
Neither  the  Christian  nor  the  Christian  Church 
can  say  of  anything  God  has  made  or  ordained 
that  it  is  of  no  use,  and  of  no  use  to  them.  That 
were  inexcusable  blindness  and  ingratitude  oh 
their  part.  The  State  is  of  great  use  to  the 
Church;  and  this  the  latter  has  always  acknowl¬ 
edged.  Even  in  the  corrupt  Church  of  the  middle 
ages,  when  the  most  learned  men  even  were  wont 
to  stigmatize  human  government  as  a  “heathenish, 
human,  godless  thing  and  as  an  estate  most  dan¬ 
gerous  to  the  interests  of  the  soul,”  these  self-same 
wiseacres  were  most  covetous  of  the  powers  they 
pretended  to  disdain.  A  thing  decidedly  profane, 
but  most  desirable  to  have  and  to  handle  :  the  one 
they  assiduously  taught,  the  other  they  just  as  as¬ 
siduously  practiced,  and  thus,  with  the  consistenc}r 
of  silly  children  though  it  be,  they  bear  witness  to 
the  worth  and  utility  of  the  State. 

“Rulers,”  according  to  the  Scriptures,  are  for 
a  terror  to  the  workers  of  evil,  and  for  praise  to  the 
doers  of  good.  The  former  necessitate  government 


178  THEIR  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION.  III. 


inasmuch  as  it  is  a  terror  to  the  wicked ;  and  on 
account  of  these  the  latter  have  need  of  it.  The 
former,  again,  have  need  of  government  inasmuch 
as  it  is  a  praise  to  the  good;  the  latter,  in  this  its 
phase,  demand  it.  Were  all  men  orderly,  peaceable, 
just  and  good,  its  feature  for  terrorism  would  be 
wholly  superfluous  and  thus  fall  away,  while  its 
positive  feature,  as  a  principle  directing  and  fur¬ 
thering  the  common  good,  would  abide.  Now  the 
Church  being  an  orderly,  peaceable,  just  and  good 
body,  yea,  the  very  seminary  of  all  good  virtues,  it 
would  appear  that  it  can  have  no  need  of  the  State 
as  “a  terror.”  But  it  only  so  appears.  The  fact  is 
that  it  needs  protection ,  partly  and  mainly  against 
those  icithout)  but  partly  also  against  some  within  its 
own  fold. 

It  is  not  alone  in  the  world ;  it  does  not  em¬ 
body  the  whole  human  race ,  neither  is  it  exter¬ 
nally  separate  from  those  not  belonging  to  it,  nor 
is  it  permitted  to  withdraw  itself  from  all  contact 
and  intercourse  with  them.  Its  labors  extend  be¬ 
yond  its  borders  and  out  among  all  nations,  since 
it  has  positive  duties  towards  all  men.  Then,  as  a 
corporation  of  human  beings  it  has  political  wants 
which,  even  if  it  were  able,  it  is  not  permitted  to 
supply.  Then,  those  without,  and  unto  whom  it 
is  sent  and  with  whom  it  must  treat  to  some 
extent,  are  not  all  reasonably  and  justly  disposed: 
some  would  defraud,  others  would  hinder,  and  still 
others  would  disturb  or  even  destroy  the  Church. 
To  deter  these  and  to  restrain  them  from  doing 
injury  to  itself  it  needs  the  formidable  arm  of  the 
protecting  body.  The  Christian  and  the  Christian 


§  10.  INDEPENDENT,  BUT  AUXILIARY.  179 


Church,  indeed,  are  rather  to  suffer  much  and  to 
suffer  long,  as  a  rule,  before  they  call  on  the  “  aven¬ 
ger  for  wrath”  to  interfere  in  their  behalf;  but 
there  is  also  a  limit  to  this  wrong  and  long-suffer¬ 
ing.  They  as  well  as  others  are  pointed  to  “  the 
minister  for  good”  who  is  intrusted  with  power 
and  charged  with  the  duty  of  enforcing  justice 
among  men.  Moreover,  the  prevalence  of  general 
peace  and  prosperity  is,  in  a  certain  way,  a  pre¬ 
requisite  to  churchly  peace  and  prosperity ;  for 
this  reason  Christians  all  are  exhorted  to  intercede 
for  those  in  authority,  and  to  pay  tribute,  to  the 
end  that  they  may  lead  a  quiet  and  peaceable  life. 
And  thus  in  a  thousand  ways  human  governments 
can  be  a  blessing  to  them  and  the  Church — so 
much  so  that  “the  discontinuation  of  all  external 
authority  (of  the  Sgouffta)  would  deprive  the  Gos¬ 
pel  (the  Church)  of  its  indispensable  foundation  in 
this  temporality.”  ( Vilmar ,  Moral ,  p.  172.)  That 
the  State  thus  prove  itself,  indirectly,  an  invalu¬ 
able  servant  to  the  Church,  is  God’s  own  will  and 
ordering;  for  the  rulers  “are  ministers  of  God’s  ser¬ 
vice,  attending  continually  upon  this  very  thing.” 
It  is  through  them  and  by  their  ministry  He 
would  protect  His  Church ;  and  this,  in  its  use  and 
enjoyment  of  good  government,  is  sensible  of  en¬ 
joying  a  divine  benefaction. 

Also  against  some  within  and,  we  are  sorry  to 
say,  against  some  possibly  of  its  own  body,  the 
Church  at  times  has  need  of  the  State.  To  under¬ 
stand  this,  two  things  must  be  borne  in  mind. 
First,  there  always  are  those  who,  having  the  form 
of  godliness  but  denying  the  power  thereof,  creep 
into  the  Church  unawares,  it  being  beyond  the 


180  THEIR  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION.  III. 


power  of  man  to  discern  their  real  nature  and  de¬ 
sign.  Secondly,  the  members  themselves  are  saints 
by  declaration  rather  than  by  virtue  of  actual  con¬ 
dition.  They  are  fully  justified  but  by  no  means 
perfectly  sanctified.  They  are,  in  this  latter  aspect, 
but  too  often  very  frail  creatures,  given  to  error 
and  wrong-doing.  In  addition  to  this  we  might 
here  also  point  to  a  condition  of  affairs,  found  but 
too  real  in  some  cases,  such  as  Carlisle  describes 
when  he  says:  “Meanwhile,  in  our  own  era  of 
the  World,  those  same  Church  Clothes  have  gone 
sorrowfully  out-at-elbowTs :  nay,  far  w^orse,  many  of 
them  have  become  mere  hollow  Shapes,  or  Masks, 
under  which  no  living  Figure  or  Spirit  any  longer 
dwells;  but  only  spiders  and  unclean  beetles,  in 
horrid  accumulation,  drive  their  trade;  and  the 
Mask  still  glares  on  you  with  its  glass  eyes,  in 
ghostly  affection  of  Life,  —  some  generation  and 
half  after  Religion  has  quite  withdrawn  from  it, 
and  in  unnoticed  nooks  is  weaving  for  herself  new 
Vestures,  wherewith  to  reappear  and  bless  us,  or 
our  sons  and  grand-sons.'7  Enough  said,  however, 
to  account  for  strife  in  the  Church — in  church- 
dom. 

Writing  on  such  matters  to  his  Corinthians, 
Paul  says  :  “  I  speak  to  your  shame.  Is  it  so  that 
there  is  not  a  wise  man  among  you  ?  no,  not  one 
that  shall  be  able  to  judge  between  his  brethren? 
But  brother  goeth  to  law  with  brother,  and  that 
before  the  unbelievers.  Now  therefore  there  is 
utterly  a  fault  among  you,  because  you  go  to  law 
one  with  another.77  (I.  cap.  6.)  Not  that  there 
are  disagreements  and  troubles  among  the  brethren 
but  that  they  go  before  the  law  with  them  is,  in 


10.  INDEPENDENT,  BUT  AUXILIARY.  181 


the  judgment  here  given,  the  greater  shame.  The 
rule  to  obtain  among  Christians  is,  that  they  adjust 
their  quarrels  among  themselves;  and  that  they  do 
not  go  to  law,  if  before  the  law  they  will  go  at  all, 
until  the  Church  shall  have  utterly  failed  to  bring 
the  guilty  parties  to  reason  and  in  consequence 

shall  have  unchurched  them.  From  this  it  is  evi- 

• 

dent  that  for  its  government  the  Church  is  to  be 
sufficient  unto  itself,  and  is  not  to  make  direct  use 
of  the  State,  as  the  avenger  for  wrath,  against  any 
member  of  its  own  body. 

The  rule  so  derived,  however,  is  not  always 
observed;  and  cases  arise  in  which  it  is  not  appli¬ 
cable.  Those  Corinthians,  whom  the  Apostle  re¬ 
proved,  have  at  all  times  up  to  our  own  day  found 
followers.  These  disregard,  to  their  own  injury  of 
course,  a  most  wise  and  holy  precept.  To  avoid 
the  worthy  gentlemen  of  the  bench  and  bar,  as 
much  as  one  can,  is  good  counsel  in  general.  Many 
differences  can  be  settled,  and  settled  at  times  more 
speedily,  inexpensively  and  satisfactorily,  by  per¬ 
sonal  conference  or  by  the  arbitration  of  mutual 
friends,  than  they  will  ever  be  by  the  more  formal, 
cumbersome  and  harassing  process  of  law.  The 
trouble  is  to  convince  people  of  the  excellency  of 
this  eminently  practical  truth. 

But  there  are  exceptions  —  even  within  the 
Church.  There  are  circumstances  under  which 
even  this  is  necessitated  to  invoke  the  judgment 
and  decision  of  the  courts  for  itself  and,  in  a  man¬ 
ner,  against  itself  at  the  same  time.  This  is  the 
case  when  factions  and  divisions  arise — when  party 
is  arrayed  against  party,  church  against  church, 
and  when  one  or  the  other  peremptorily  refuses 


182 


THEIR  DIVINELY  ORDERED  RELATION.  III. 


to  treat  directly  with  the  other  or  to  abide  by  any 
decision  save  that  of  the  civil  law.  It  is  then  that 
“  the  rulers”  can  demonstrate  their  worth  to  the 
Church  also  as  a  terror  to  evil-doers  within  its  own 
domain,  if  not  of  its  own  body.  Meanwhile,  ’t  is  a 
shame  always  for  the  body  spiritual  to  call  in  the 
secular  body  for  its  own  correction,  and — woe  to 
those  within  who  bring  such  reproach  upon  any 
people  of  God. 

This  service  of  the  State  to  the  Church  sug¬ 
gests  the  query  how  the  former  can  possibly  arbi¬ 
trate  between  church  and  church,  since  it  has 
neither  power  of  judgment  and  arbitration  nor 
authority  in  affairs  strictly  religious  ?  In  answer 
it  must  be  observed  that  also  in  such  cases  it  is 
only  to  act  on  matters  of  right  and  justice  as  com¬ 
ing  within  its  own  sphere.  To  the  State  it  is  sim¬ 
ply  one  corporation  versus  another,  or  a  part  of  a 
corporation  versus  another;  and  hence,  to  it  the 
case  is  wholly  one  of  common  and  corporate  rights. 
True,  the  whole  case  may  ultimately  or  directly 
rest  entirely  on  questions  of  doctrine ;  but  even 
here  the  courts  have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
the  truth  or  falsity,  merit  or  demerit,  of  the  doc¬ 
trines  involved.  It  has  no  farther  business  than 
that  it  ascertain  the  facts  of  the  case  and  decide 
according  to  its  own  standards  on  the  facts  obtained 
— that  is,  which  party  in  fact  adheres  to  the  doc¬ 
trinal  position  on  which  the  church  was  established 
and  incorporated,  received  its  rights  and  acquired 
its  property,  etc.,  and  which  not.  “  The  courts 
cannot  inquire  into  the  doctrines  and  opinions  of 
any  religious  society  for  the  purpose  of  deciding 
whether  these  are  right  or  wrong ;  but  it  is  their 


§  10.  INDEPENDENT,  BUT  AUXILIARY.  183 


duty  to  do  this  when  civil  rights  depend  thereon, 
and  then  it  must  be  done  by  such  evidence  as  the 
nature  of  the  case  admits  of.”  ( Legal  decision  in 
the  State  of  N.  Jersey.)  “The  court  cannot  interfere 
with  the  determination  of  the  majority  in  any  man¬ 
ner,  except  to  correct  a  misappropriation  of  trust- 
property  or  funds.”  (  Wilson  v.  Presb.  Church  of  Ps 
Island ,  S.  (7.)  “  In  case  of  a  dispute  for  the  posses¬ 

sion  of  church-property,  the  civil  court  might  in¬ 
quire  into  the  religious  belief  and  practices  of  the 
contestants,  simply  as  a  question  of  fact,  to  assist  in 
determining  the  claim,  precisely  as  it  would  in  the 
case  of  any  club  or  voluntary  association  having  a 
declaration  of  principles,  or  articles  of  agreement, 
upon  the  due  observance  of  which  the  possession  of 
a  certain  property  was  dependent ;  but  only  upon 
such  collateral  questions  of  civil  rights  does  Ameri¬ 
can  law  take  cognizance  of  churches.”  ( Thompson , 
p.  67.) 

To  describe  the  full  worth  and  to  speak  the 
praises  of  the  State,  where  at  all  it  is  what  it  is  de¬ 
signed  to  be,  and  where  it  faithfully  executes  its 
high  trust,  is  next  to  impossible.  It  is  the  di¬ 
vinely  appointed  guardian  of  our  lives  and  the 
lives  of  all  who  are  dear  to  us ;  by  the  will  of,  and 
in  subordination  to,  God  it  is  the  protector  of  our 
property,  the  preserver  of  general  order,  the  keeper 
of  the  common  peace,  the  avenger  of  our  wrongs, 
the  promoter  of  our  prosperity — in  every  way  our 
highest  earthly  benefactor,  so  that  in  the  Script¬ 
ures  even  our  “rulers”  are  called  “gods.”  Now 
what  the  State  is  to  us  and  is  to  us  individually, 
the  same  it  is  to  the  Church — an  invaluable  and 
indispensable  treasure. 


184  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


IV.  THE  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION  OF 
THE  STATE  AND  THE  CHURCH. 


PRELIMINARY  DEFINITION,  AND  HISTORICAL 

STATEMENT. 


From  what  has  been  said  about  them  in  the 
preceding  paragraphs,  it  would  appear  that  our 
good  friends  “ Ralph  and  Rachel”  ought  to  be  mar¬ 
ried.  Such,  at  least,  is  the  judgment  of  many  of 
their  friends,  wise  and  foolish,  dead  and  living. 
These  have  not  the  least  doubt  concerning  the 
utter  practicability,  the  eminent  fitness  and  great 
utility  of  such,  in  their  opinion,  happy  affair;  and 
hence  they  have  advocated  its  consummation  with 
all  possible  zeal,  and  still  continue  so  to  do.  Be¬ 
fore  we  inquire  more  particularly  into  the  reasons 
pro  and  con ,  and  make  up  our  own  minds  on  the 
matter,  it  will  be  necessary  to  notice  what  such  an 
estate,  as  here  contemplated,  really  signifies. 

A  union  of  the  State  and  the  Church  consists  essen¬ 
tially  in  this:  that  the  former  adopt  the  creed  of  the  latter 
as  its  own  and  advance  its  interests ,  support  its  clergy , 
etc .  /  then ,  that,  in  return ,  the  latter  delegate  the  manage¬ 
ment  of  its  own  affairs  to  the  former .  Protection  by 
the  State  of  the  Church  against  disturbance  in  its 
gatherings  and  religious  exercises,  against  the  dese¬ 
cration  of  its  sanctuaries,  against  criminal  insults 
and  injuries,  against  interference  with  its  func- 


§10. 


PRELIMINARY. 


185 


tionaries  in  the  performance  of  their  duties,  and 
things  of  that  kind,  do  not  indicate  nor  as  yet  sig¬ 
nify  a  union  between  them.  Nor  do  the  so-called 
Jides  publica  granted  the  Church  or  its  officers  by  a 
government  as  yet  involve  or  constitute  their  alli¬ 
ance.  When,  as  is  the  case  in  the  United  States, 
such  privileges  are  conferred  upon  the  clergy — e.  g. 
the  authority  to  solemnize  marriages  —  and  such 
special  benefits  are  granted  the  several  churches — 
e.  g.  exemption  from  taxation — this  delegation  of 
civil  functions  and  this  bestowal  of  civil  favors  do 
not  necessarily  imply  an  official  connection  of 
Church  and  State.  Such  things  are  accidents  of  a 
State-Church  but  not  peculiar  to  it  and  not  an 
essential  constituent.  What  may  be  said  with  re¬ 
gard  to  their  propriety  and  expediency,  is  another 
thing.  In  an  ecclesiastical  establishment  —  as  a 
State-Church  is  usually  called — religion,  and  re¬ 
ligion  of  a  distinctive  and  possibly  even  of  a  sec¬ 
tarian,  character  is  made  a  specific  object  of  gov¬ 
ernment  ;  its  doctrines  are  embodied,  so  to  speak, 
as  a  part  of  the  corpus  juris  civilis ,  its  officials  are 
supported,  and  these  together  with  the  whole 
church  thus  adopted  submit  their  affairs  to  State- 
control.  The  pecuniary  means  required  in  support 
of  the  Church  are  obtained  by  general  taxation  or 
from  investments  in  the  hands  of  the  government. 
For  an  illustration  of  a  State  and  Church  union 
we  point  to  Great  Britain.  There,  “The  Acts  of 
Supremacy  and  Uniformity” — statutes  enacted  un¬ 
der  Elizabeth  in  the  first  year  of  her  reign,  and 
whereby  the  Anglican  Church  was  officially  con¬ 
nected  with  the  government — establish  the  sub- 
8* 


186 


THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION  IV. 


ordination  of  the  Church  to,  and  dependency  on,  the 
temporal  power:  the  first  abrogating  all  jurisdic¬ 
tion  and  legislative  pow'er  of  ecclesiastical  rulers, 
except  under  authority  of  the  Crown ;  and  the 
second  prohibiting  all  changes  of  rites  and  dis¬ 
cipline  without  the  approbation  of  Parliament. 
See  Hallanvs  Constitutional  History,  I.,  p.  231. 

We  have  already  noticed  in  a  former  §  that 
among  the  Ancients  civil  and  religious  affairs, 
Church  and  State,  were  indiscriminately  mixed. 
And  to  this  day  most  all  countries,  wherein  heath¬ 
enism  and  Mohammedanism  are  prevalent,  have 
and  uphold  what  may  be  termed  State-Churches; 
some  excluding,  others  tolerating,  dissent.  The 
Christian  religion  was  for  the  first  time  govern- 
mentally  established  under  Constantine  the  Great. 
From  that  time  on,  throughout  the  middle  ages  to 
the  present,  the  Christian  religion — in  forms  more 
or  less  pure  and  impure,  and  with  fortune  varying 
with  misfortune — has  been  the  accepted  system  of 
belief  in  many  States  of  many  lands.  The  grounds 
on  which  such  establishments  are  effected  in  gen¬ 
eral,  are  two:  the  papistic  and  the  protestant.  By 
the  former  the  union  is  divinely  called  for ;  by  the 
latter  it  is  a  human  arrangement.  The  indefens¬ 
ible  character,  the  falsity  and  vanity  of  the  one  we 
have  already  exposed;  it  remains  to  prove  the 
strength  and  wisdom,  if  any  it  have,  of  the  other 
— Establishments  as  based  on  human  grounds.  Be¬ 
fore,  however,  we  inquire  into  their  merits,  it  will 
be  well  to  point  out  several  things  accidental  to 
them  and  what  are,  in  some  respects,  inevitable 
results. 


10. 


PRELIMINARY. 


187 


•  The  religious  system — including  doctrine,  rites 
and  polity — which  a  State  adopts  as  its  own,  calls 
for  a  special  department  of  government.  Every¬ 
thing  which  in  any  way  formidably  interferes 
with  the  accepted  religion,  is  disparaged  by  the 
civil  law  and  may  at  any  time  be  declared  crim¬ 
inal  and  culpable.  As  a  consequence,  a  person, 
under  such  a  form  of  government,  may  be  held 
accountable  for  things  which  the  State,  if  separate 
from  the  Church,  would  not  at  all  notice.  Like¬ 
wise,  duties  are  there  imposed  on  citizens  without 
distinction,  which  in  a  purely  civil  form  of  govern¬ 
ment  are  impossible  and  unknown ;  for  instance, 
the  imposition  of  taxes  for  the  benefit  of  the 
established  religion.  Then,  discriminations  are 
not  unfrequently  made  in  favor  of  the  citizen- 
churchman  to  the  detriment  of  the  non-conform¬ 
ing  inhabitant.  Such  things  take  place  when  a 
formal  connection  with  the  adopted  church  is  de¬ 
clared  a  necessary  qualification  for  holding  office 
under  the  government,  or  even  for  common  citi¬ 
zenship.  For  an  example  we  refer  to  the  old  and 
now  abrogated  “Test  and  Corporation  Acts’*  of 
England,  whereby  communion,  and  communion 
in  the  Church  of  England,  was  made  a  sine  qua 
non  for  holding  office  and  for  enjoying  many  other 
civil  rights,  such  as  should  be  common. 

Notwithstanding  these  things,  an  official  alli¬ 
ance  of  State  and  Church  can  not  be  said  to  be 
morally  wrong  in  itself  and  as  such.  There  is  no 
law  of  natural  religion  nor  any  positive  divine 
prohibition  revealed  to  its  condemnation.  Neither 
can  this  be  followed  from  the  respective  origins, 


188  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


natures,  and  objects  of  the  State  and  the  Church. 
That  their  union  is  wrong  in  the  abstract,  and 
that  it  must  of  necessity  prove  disastrous,  it  would 
be  difficult  to  prove  from  such  grounds ;  rather, 
the  one-time  Israelitic  form  of  government,  com¬ 
monly  called  the  theocracy,  being  sanctioned  if 
not  instituted  by  God  Himself,  shows  conclusively 
that  an  alliance  of  Church  and  State  is,  as  such , 
not  sinful.  The  question  of  church-establishments 
is  thus  reduced  to  one  of  equity  and  expediency ; 
but,  for  all  that,  it  loses  none  of  its  importance ; 
and  of  the  highest  importance  it  is  to  every  one, 
believer  and  unbeliever,  high  and  low. 

§  11.  THE  ARGUMENTS  FOR  THEIR  UNION — 

REFUTED. 

The  arguments  put  forth  in  favor  of  religious 
establishments  are  generally,  from  the  nature  of 
the  case  in  hand,  of  a  moral  and  religious  sort. 
Some  of  them  are  quite  plausible  and  well  calcu¬ 
lated  to  mislead,  especially  the  unwary  friend  of 
the  Church,  to  whom  at  the  same  time  they  are 
also  mostly  addressed.  The  course  of  reasoning 
employed  may  be  given  in  the  words  of  Gladstone 
— at  one  time,  and  perhaps  still,  a  warm  friend  of 
these  institutions.  “  I  submit — says  he — that  the 
most  authentic,  the  most  conclusive,  the  most  philo¬ 
sophical,  and,  in  the  absence  of  literal  and  undis¬ 
puted  precept  from  Scripture,  also  the  most  direct 
method  of  handling  this  important  investigation,  is 
that  which  examines  the  moral  character  and  ca- 


11. 


ARGUMENTS  FOR  THEIR  UNION. 


189 


pacities  of  nations  and  of  rulers,  and  thus  founds 
the  whole  idea  of  their  duty  upon  that  will  which 
gave  them  existence.”  (The  St.  in  its  Rel.  to  the 
Ch.  cap.  2).  How  this  method  will  serve  the  ad¬ 
vocates  of  their  union  and  their  cause,  we  shall  see. 

In  the  first  place  it  is  asserted  that  religion  itself 
is  one  of  the  chief  ends  of  human  government. 
Salus  publica  suprema  lex  esto ,  say  they  with  the 
wise  Romans;  whether  with  better,  or  as  good, 
understanding,  is  doubtful.  In  connection  with 
this  it  is  urged  that  the  duties  of  governments  are  pa¬ 
ternal,  It  is  apparent  that  the  salus  publica  is  here 
made  to  include  the  people’s  salus  spiritualise  and 
that  the  duties  paternal  are  intended  to  embrace 
also  the  obligation  of  the  parents  to  see  to  the  spir¬ 
itual  training  of  their  children.  In  the  second 
place  it  would  appear  from  the  way  this  double 
argument  is  advanced,  that  the  duty  of  caring  for 
the  spiritual  good  of  the  community  is  an  essential 
feature  of  governmental  functions;  is  a  matter  of 
course,  therefore,  no  less  than  is  its  duty  to  protect 
and  prosper  the  citizen  generally  in  temporal 
affairs.  If  this  be  intended,  then  is  the  argument 
already  met.  We  have  shown  conclusively  that 
the  State  has  received  neither  a  divine  call  to  do 
such  work  nor  the  means  with  which  to  do  it.  The 
object  of  its  existence  is  the  public  bodily,  not  the 
public  spiritual,  safety  and  welfare.  Were  the 
latter  enjoined  upon  it  by  divine  will,  then  would 
the  difference  between  Church  and  State  be  essen¬ 
tially  wiped  out;  for  if  the  government  have  a 
divine  call  to  attend  to  the  religious  wants  of  its 
subjects,  then  is  it  in  itself  a  church.  We  have 


190  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


seen  that  the  ministry,  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
is  committed  to  the  Church;  that  this,  and  this 
alone,  is  to  proclaim  the  word  and  disciple  the  na¬ 
tions.  However,  it  might  be  asked,  are  not  “rul¬ 
ers”  called  “God's  ministers”?  True,  but  He  has 
more  than  one  kind  of  ministers  —  servants  —  on 
earth.  The  winds  and  the  waves,  the  fowls  of  the 
air  and  the  fish  of  the  sea,  the  wild  beasts  and  the 
pestilence  that  creepeth  in  darkness,  are  all  the 
ministers  of  Him  that  made  them  and  holds  them, 
as  it  were,  in  the  hollow  of  His  hand.  Need  we 
say  that,  though  they  be  ministers  and  are  so 
called,  these  are  not  called  to  minister  in  spir¬ 
itual  things?  No  more  are  “ rulers  ”  as  such ,  ap¬ 
pointed  to  do  this  —  their  designation  as  “God’s 
ministers,”  at  least,  cannot  be  taken  in  evidence ; 
they  have  a  ministry  of  their  own,  and  its  functions 
are  clearly  specified. 

And  yet  again,  “  when  the  sovereign  sees  his 
people  plunge  headlong  into  an  abyss  of  fire,  shall 
he  not  stretch  out  a  hand  to  save  them  ?  Such,  for 
example,  seems  to  have  been  the  train  of  reason¬ 
ing,  and  such  the  motives  (?),  which  led  Lewis 
XIV.  into  those  coercive  measures  which  he  took 
for  the  conversion  of  heretics  and  the  confirmation 
of  true  believers.  The  groundwork,  pure  sympa¬ 
thy  (?)  and  loving  kindness  (?):  the  super¬ 
structure,  all  the  misery  which  the  most  determined 
malevolence  could  have  devised.”  ( Morals  and  Leg¬ 
islation  by  Jeremy  Bentham ,  IL  p.  251).  Is  the  “sov¬ 
ereign”  not  to  stretch  forth  a  helping  hand?  Yea, 
and  nay, — that  is,  not  the  “sovereign”  as  such; 
but  the  “sovereign”  as  a  man  and  Christian ,  most 


11. 


ARGUMENTS  FOR  THBIR  UNION. 


I  II  If 

191 


assuredly.  Within  this  latter  capacity  it  is  his  duty 
and  privilege  to  do  all  he  can  to  save  souls ;  but 
always  with  those  powers,  with  that  authority,  and 
with  those  means  which  belong  to  him  as  a  private 
individual  and  as  a  member  of  the  Church.  Far¬ 
ther  he  has  no  divine  call — that  being  the  phase  in 
which  we  now  give  answer  to  the  arguments  pro¬ 
pounded. 

The  office  paternal  is  thus  classically  and 
pleasingly  described  by  Addison :  “  Nothing  is 

more  gratifying  to  the  mind  of  man  than  power  or 
dominion ;  and  this  I  think  myself  amply  pos¬ 
sessed  of,  as  I  am  the  father  of  a  family.  I  am 
perpetually  taken  up  in  giving  out  orders,  in  pre¬ 
scribing  duties,  in  hearing  parties,  in  administering 
justice,  and  in  distributing  rewards  and  punish¬ 
ments  ....  I  look  upon  my  family  as  a  patriarchal 
sovereignty,  in  which  I  am  myself  both  king  and 
priest  .  .  .  When  I  see  my  little  troop  before  me  I 
rejoice  in  the  additions  which  I  have  made  to  my 
species,  to  my  country,  and  to  my  religion,  in 
having  produced  such  a  number  of  reasonable 
creatures,  citizens,  and  Christians.”  (Spectator 
No.  500).  The  paternal  function  with  respect  to 
the  family  is  really  threefold ;  the  father  is  its 
prophet,  priest,  and  king.  Then,  in  each  of  these, 
it  is  again  to  be  considered  in  a  twofold  aspect,  the 
bodily  and  the  spiritual.  In  things  earthly  and 
in  things  heavenly  the  man  must  be  father  to  his 
own  household.  Now  in  view  of  the  affairs  of  this 
earth  it  is  eminently  appropriate  to  speak  of  the 
office  of  rulers  as  being  paternal ;  not  so  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  spiritual.  We  accordingly  reject  the 


192  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


notion  that  “  Though  an  establishment  is  not 
essential  to  Christianity  itself,  it  is  essential  to 
every  Christian  government  which  desires  to  dis¬ 
charge  its  highest  obligation  toward  the  people 
committed  to  its  care.  A  connection  between 
Christianity  and  the  rulers  of  a  Christian  country 
is  imperiously  required  to  fulfill  the  duty  of  the 
parent  of  the  State  to  his  vast  family.”  (Gladstone.) 

Wholly  different  must  be  our  answer  to  those 
who  admit  that  the  spiritual  paternal  function  is 
not  originally  and  adherently  a  part  of  the  office  of 
State,  but  who  claim  that  for  the  good  of  the  State 
and  the  Church  the  latter  should  unite  with  the 
former,  and  thus  in  concert  exercise  the  paternal 
office  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  term.  “The  single 
view — says  Dr.  Paley — under  which  we  ought  to 
consider  a  church-establishment  is  that  of  a  scheme 
of  instruction — the  single  end  we  ought  to  proprose 
by  it  is  the  preservation  and  confirmation  of  relig¬ 
ious  knowledge.  Every  other  idea  and  every  other 
end  that  has  been  mixed  with  this — as  the  making 
of  the  church  an  engine,  or  even  an  ally,  of  the 
state;  converting  it  into  the  means  of  strengthen¬ 
ing  or  of  diffusing  influence;  or  of  regarding  it  as  a 
support  of  regal,  in  opposition  to  popular,  forms  of 
government — has  served  only  to  debase  the  institu¬ 
tion,  and  to  introduce  into  it  numerous  corruptions 
and  abuses.”  ( Moral  and  Pol.  Phil.  bk.  VI.  cap.  10). 
When  a  union  of  Church  and  State  is  thus  viewed 
as  a  human  arrangement,  as  it  always  should  be, 
and  then  urged  on  grounds  of  expediency  and  util¬ 
ity — our  answer  to  it  will  be  found  in  what  fol¬ 
lows  in  this  and  the  following  sections. 


11. 


ARGUMENTS  FOR  THEIR  UNION. 


(  lit  H 

193 


In  the  second  place ,  we  will  notice  what  is  really 
the  same  argument  as  the  above,  only  in  another 
and  more  general  form.  Civil  liberty,  social  order, 
and  material  aggrandizement — it  is  said — are  not 
ends  but  only  the  means  of  an  end,  the  end  here 
referred  to  being  the  salvation  of  men;  and  this  is 
to  be  the  object  of  government.  The  principle  here 
enunciated  is  perfectly  correct,  but  it  is  grievously 
misapplied.  The  train  of  reasoning  is  this:  the 
ultimate  object  of  all  things,  of  all  orders,  and  of  all 
activities,  is  religion,  therefore  the  direct  and  stated 
object  also  of  human  governments  should  be  relig¬ 
ion.  That  religion  is  not  a  specific  object  of  State- 
existence  primarily,  and  properly  speaking,  has 
been  amply  demonstrated;  and  farther  on  it  will 
be  conclusively  shown  that  religion,  as  the  final  and 
remote  end  of  all  being,  is  best  subserved  by  the 
State  when  it  rigidly  and  exclusively  keeps  in  view 
its  own  legitimate  business.  The  State  when  true 
to  itself,  in  all  its  departments  and  transactions,  best 
proves  and  approves  itself  a  means  furthering  the 
highest  relation  of  life;  but  its  direct  object  and  its 
only  business  are,  Protection — nothing  more.  The 
argumentation  indulged  in  in  this  instance  is  really 
inexcusably  foolish  and  highly  amusing.  Because 
the  last  end  of  all  life  and  living,  of  mechanism  and 
operation,  is  religion,  therefore,  a  stocking-factory, 
say,  is  an  objectless,  vain  and  wicked  concern  un¬ 
less  it  also  make  religion  an  object  and  have  a 
church  in  formal  connection  with  it.  A  ludicrous 
idea,  to  be  sure,  but  the  reasoning  leading  to  it  is 
about  as  good  as  that  offered  for  our  acceptance. 

A  third  argument  may  be  made  to  read  briefly 
9 


194  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


as  follows :  A  government  is  a  compound  of  beings 
moral  and  responsible  and  whose  actions ,  to  be  accepta¬ 
ble  to  the  Deity ,  must  be  sanctified  ;  therefore  the  govern¬ 
ment  must  have  a  religion.  The  truthfulness  of  the 
premises  we  do  not  question  in  the  least,  but  all 
the  more  doubtful  is  to  us  the  conclusion,  espe¬ 
cially  as  understood  by  those  deducing  it.  We 
admit  that  the  State  is*  something  more  than  a 
mere  human  arrangement,  more  than  a  mere  mech¬ 
anism  by  men  devised  and  constructed,  that  in 
truth  it  is  an  organism  with  regard  to  its  funda¬ 
mental  principle  and  life.  It  is  a  something  called 
into  existence  and  upheld  not  only  by  the  force  of 
necessity,  not  only  by  the  fact  of  its  utility,  but 
also  by  a  love  of  right  and  justice,  of  equity  and 
order,  in  the  hearts  of  the  people.  For  this  reason 
it  is  an  organism,  even  a  moral  organism  with  a 
moral  responsibility  and  in  need  of  sanctification. 
However,  this  moral  responsibility  and  this  sancti¬ 
fication  must,  in  its  kind,  conform  to  that  moral  life 
which  begets  and  pervades  the  State  and  which 
gives  to  it  its  character  of  an  organism.  Nor  is  it 
logically  permitted  to  substitute  for  this  any  other 
moral  principle.  Now  it  is  the  natural,  not  the 
Christian — the  divinely  revealed  and  religiously 
implanted — law  and  sense  of  justice,  of  goodness, 
etc.,  which  produces  and  supports  the  State;  there¬ 
fore  its  proper  creed  must  be  that  of  natural  relig¬ 
ion — if  so  you  will  call  it — and  its  sanctity  of 
action  must  be  derived  from  this  and  not  from 
revealed  religion.  We  submit,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
that  the  term  “  natural  rights ,”  in  its  purest  and 
holiest  sense,  comprises  the  whole  of  that  religion 


11. 


ARGUMENTS  FOR  THEIR  UNION. 


195 


which  a  government  as  such  needs  to  believe, 
teach,  and  practice  in  order  satisfactorily  to  ac¬ 
count  for  itself  and  its  doings.  The  “  theology  ”  of 
the  State  properly  treats  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
natural  rights  of  man,  and  its  “  creed  ”  we  find 
expressed  in  its  laws  and  statutes.  But  as  God 
does  not  judge  a  church  by  its  creed  and  theology 
but  rather  by  the  pure  light  of  His  own  Word, 
likewise  will  He  ask  account  of  a  state  not  by  its 
own  forms  and  teachings  of  justice  and  equity  but 
rather  by  the  pure  truth  of  these  principles  and 
virtues  themselves.  The  question  put  by  the  great 
Judge  to  civil  governments  is,  not:  did  you  teach 
Christ  and  thus  save  souls  ?  but :  did  you  teach 
and  administer  justice,  did  you  uphold  and  further 
peace  and  order  to  the  good  of  each  and  all  your 
subjects?  Again,  not:  did  you  do  the  work  of  the 
Church  ?  but :  did  you  protect  it  in  its  legitimate 
existence  and  calling?  These  questions  satisfac¬ 
torily  answered,  all  will  be  well. 

The  sanctity  to  be  predicated  of  the  actions  of 
a  government  (even  of  any  society  of  men),  and 
whereby  they  become  acceptable  before  God,  is  an 
entirely  different  thing  from  that  sanctity  which 
renders  individual  actions  acceptable.  Such  ac¬ 
tions  can  only  proceed  from  a  heart  sanctified  in 
the  scriptural  sense,  that  is,  from  the  heart  of  a 
Christian  believer.  If  human  governments  can  be 
said  to  have  a  “heart”  at  all,  it  must  mean  that 
sense  of  right  and  love  of  justice  as  they  are  found 
embodied  in  its  laws.  If  these  virtues  are  cor¬ 
rectly  defined,  clearly  expounded  and  faithfully 
applied,  then  may  we  say  that  the  “heart”  and 


196  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


the  actions  of  State  are  “  holy  and  acceptable.” 
Nor  need  anything  be  added  beyond  this  and  of 
another  nature.  The  embodiment  of  religious  dog¬ 
mas  and  precepts,  be  they  never  so  correct  in  them¬ 
selves,  will  not  contribute  a  scintilla  of  holiness  to 
the  “  soul  ”  of  State.  The  Lord  has  ordained  the 
powers  that  be,  not  to  be  a  religious  institution 
but  to  be  a  body  expounding  and  enforcing  man’s 
relation  of  right  to  man ;  being  this  and  doing 
accordingly,  they  are  and  they  do  all  that  is  re¬ 
quired  of  them;  and  upon  this,  and  nothing  else, 
are  they  acceptable  before  Him. 

Because  God  is  not  recognized  as  the  supreme 
Being  and  the  Governor  of  the  universe  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  an  entire  de¬ 
nomination — the  Reformed  Presbyterians — refuses 
to  incorporate  with  the  State.  This  silence  of  our 
national  charter  is  considered  by  many  a  serious 
defect,  if  not  a  positive  wrong.  They  of  the  u  Na¬ 
tional  Reform ”  party — conceived  in  Xenia,  0.,  Feb. 
3,  1863,  and  born  in  Allegheny  City,  Pa.,  Jan.  27, 
1864* — disavow  all  intentions  and  desires  of  any 
union  between  Church  and  State,  but — they  want 
God  named  and  acknowledged  in  the  Constitution 
and,  if  we  mistake  not,  Christianity  generally  rec¬ 
ognized  as  the  religion  of  the  land.  And  this, 
they  expressly  declare,  not  as  a  matter  of  “  compli¬ 
ment,  but  as  a  right,  not  as  a  theory,  but  as  a  fact 
and  a  necessity.”  A  formal  acknowledgment  of 
this  kind  in  the  sense  of  a  “compliment”  would 
be  a  mockery  next  to  blasphemy.  Whereon 
these  people  base  the  “right”  they  here  bespeak 
for  themselves  and  their  cause,  it  is  difficult  to  con- 


*  Whether  living  or  dead,  we  know  not. 


11. 


ARGUMENTS  FOR  THEIR  UNION. 


197 


ceive.  Upon  the  truthfulness  of  the  statements  to 
be  inserted?  If  so,  we  submit :  that  the  statements, 
true  as  they  are  indeed,  are  in  their  nature  a  relig¬ 
ious  confession ;  then,  that  the  Constitution  itself 
deprecates  the  very  thought  of  being  a  religious 
confession  in  any  of  its  parts ;  accordingly,  that, 
though  it  is  the  right  and  duty  of  every  man  to 
confess  each  and  every  truth  of  our  holy  Christian 
religion,  it  is  neither  his  right  nor  his  duty  to 
make  the  Constitution  of  the  land  an  instrument 
for  such  confession  to  any  extent  whatever.  The 
Constitution  is  the  common  property  of  the  whole 
people — it  belongs  to  the  atheist  as  much  as  to  the 
theist,  to  the  Jew  and  Gentile  as  fully  as  to  the 
Christian;  and  Christians,  say  that  they  had  the 
power,  have  not  the  right  to  use  what  is  common 
for  specific  personal  purposes  without  the  acquies¬ 
cence  of  those  holding  equal  rights.  Or,  let  us 
look  at  it  in  another  way.  Every  citizen  of  the 
United  States  is  impliedly  a  subscriber  to  the 
Constitution  and  is  virtually  by  oath  or  solemn 
affirmation  bound  to  acknowledge  and  support  as 
his  own  every  article  thereof;  how  now  in  com¬ 
mon,  not  to  say  Christian,  equity  can  any  Chris¬ 
tian  body  of  men  want  to  force  a  confession  of 
faith  and  its  support  on  any  other  body  of  men 
who  in  their  hearts  are  averse  to  it?  No,  the  in¬ 
sertion  of  an  article  of  religious  belief  is  not  only 
not  a  right  but,  under  the  circumstances,  an  act  in¬ 
compatible  with  religious  liberty  and  therefore  an 
injustice.  Whether  it  be  so  acknowledged  in  the 
Constitution  or  not,  the  facts,  that  God  is  and  rules 
over  all,  that  the  Christian  religion  is  the  only  true 


198  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


religion  and  at  the  same  time  predominant  in  the 
land — are  and  remain  such  facts  all  the  same  ;  and 
there  are  a  thousand  ways  open  for  us  Christians 
to  make  known  this  our  precious  confidence.  The 
silence  of  the  Constitution  on  this  matter  does  not 
make  it  a  godless  instrument  nor  our  government 
a  godless  institution  ;  it  is  not  at  all  a  denial  of  God 
and  of  godliness  but  simply  signifies  that  affairs 
politic  and  affairs  religious  shall  be  kept  separate  as 
distinct  things,  and  that  it  does  not  consider  it  the 
business  of  the  government  as  such  to  profess  a  re¬ 
ligious  belief— a  principle  as  beneficent  as  was  ever 
enounced  by  any  government  in  the  world.  On 
the  other  hand,  say  what  you  will  to  the  contraiy, 
an  introduction  of  any  article  of  religious  belief 
into  the  fundamental  law  of  our  land  is  incipiently 
an  undermining  of  religious  liberty  and  an  estab¬ 
lishment  of  religion. 

Another  feature  of  the  case  must  not  be  over¬ 
looked;  this  namely,  that  a  profession  of  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  the  Supreme  Being  and  of  any  one  of  His 
attributes  as  of  any  one  of  His  works,  unless  it  at 
the  same  time  implies  the  entire  doctrine  of  the 
person,  word  and  work  of  God,  is  nothing  but  a 
solemn  farce.  “  Whosoever  goeth  onward  and  abid- 
eth  not  in  the  teaching  of  Christ,  hath  not  God;” 
and  “God  is  a  Spirit,  and  they  that  worship  Him 
must  worship  Him  in  spirit  and  in  truth.”  From 
a  Christian  point  of  view,  a  belief  in  God  and  a 
confession  thereof,  unless  it  implies  “the  teaching 
of  Christ,”  is  wholly  worthless,  and  before  God 
Himself  an  abomination.  Since  then  a  recogni¬ 
tion  of  the  Deity  in  the  Constitution  of  our  land 


ARGUMENTS  FOR  THEIR  UNION. 


199 


§11. 


or  of  any  land,  except  it  be  of  the  truth  and  be 
done  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  is  a  senseless  and  vain 
matter  of  form,  how  can  intelligent  Christians 
urge  it?  Or  do  they  mean  to  tell  us  that  the  faith 
thus  confessed  in  part  is  not  a  denial  of  any  of  its 
other  parts,  is  not  a  denial  of  Christ  and  His  teach¬ 
ing?  We  answer:  neither  is  the  absence  of  all  and 
any  such  profession  in  our  Constitution  in  the  least 
a  denial  of  the  existence  and  supremacy  of  God. 
Such  silence  does  not  make  our  government  a  pro¬ 
fane  and  heathenish  concern. 

The  family  and  the  State  are  institutions  of 
the  same  kind.  Now  when  believer  and  unbe¬ 
liever  are  joined  in  marriage,  is  the  estate  on  that 
account  an  “unclean’1  order  since  the  family  as 
such  have  no  religion?  Paul,  an  authority  in  such 
matters,  says:  “the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanc¬ 
tified  in  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is 
sanctified  in  the  husband :  else  were  your  children 
unclean;  but  now  are  they  holy.”  In  the  same 
sense  and  manner  do  we  ascribe  “cleanness”  and 
“holiness”  to  our  government  and  its  actions, 
though  as  such  it  have  no  religion  nor  it  make  pro¬ 
fession  of  any.  The  cases  are  entirely  analogous. 
This  we  cannot  affirm  of  what  follows,  but  it  serves 
to  illustrate.  If  I,  a  Christian,  am  a  co-partner  in 
business  with  others,  not  Christians,  and  our  firm 
in  consequence  have  no  established  religion,  must 
our  business  on  that  account  be  declared  heath¬ 
enish  and  accursed  before  God?  Is  the  defense  of 
my  country  a  vain  and  wicked  thing  on  my  part 
who  fight  in  the  fear  of  God,  unless  my  regiment 
or  company  have  before  agreed  on  a  common  form 


200  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


of  faith?  Before  taking  stock  in  a  corporation  of 
some  sort  or  accepting  a  position  in  a  counting- 
room,  foundry,  factory,  or  thing  of  that  kind,  must 
you,  to  preserve  your  Christian  character,  first  in¬ 
quire  whether  the  corporate  bodies,  or  the  proprie¬ 
tors  offering  business-inducements,  also  believe  and 
profess  God  and  the  Christian  religion  ?  No,  in 
each  and  all  these  cases  the  moral  worth  of  your 
character  and  of  your  actions  depends  solely  upon 
your  individual  relation  to  God. 

When  lastly  the  constitutional  amendment,  as 
proposed,  is  based  on  the  ground  of  necessity,  we 
are  led  thereby  to  a 

Fourth  argument .  This  sets  forth  that  church- 
establishments  are  necessary  to‘  secure  Christian  laws , 
usages  and  institutions.  The  Christian  Church  has 
proved  itself  of  incalculable  value  to  the  govern¬ 
ments  of  this  world,  not  only  by  the  moral  recti¬ 
tude  and  wholesome  influence  of  its  members  but 
also  by  its  promulgation  and  defense  of  sound 
moral  principles  generally.  For  the  laws  governing 
the  marriage  relation  ;  for  the  doctrine  of  the  com¬ 
mon  brotherhood  of  man  ;  for  the  consequent  prin¬ 
ciple  of  equal  rights  and  duties ;  for  the  founding 
of  divers  benevolent  institutions ;  above  all,  for 
the  sublime  and  only  true  aspect  of  the  wTorld  now 
generally  prevalent ;  for  the  wholesome  influence 
of  its  doctrine  concerning  man,  his  duties,  his  ac¬ 
countability — for  all  these  society  is  largely,  if  not 
solely,  indebted  to  Christianity.  It  is  the  bearer  of 
great  moral  principles  and  has  done  much  towards 
giving  a  moral  foundation,  strength  and  shape  to 
society  and  to  its  various  customs  and  institutions. 


11. 


ARGUMENTS  FOR  THEIR  UNION. 


201 


Now  that  the  benefits  thus  derived  from  Chris¬ 
tianity  by  the  State  and  society  at  large  may  be 
secured,  it  is  thought  necessary  that  Christianity 
itself  should  become  the  adopted  religion  of  the 
State.  But  that  is  a  grave  mistake.  Christianity 
itself  is  safest  and  will  yield  more  and  better  fruit 
for  the  State  when  left  alone  and  free  than  it  will 
when  bound.  Of  this,  more  in  another  place. 

The  safety  and  perpetuity  of  such  laws,  cus¬ 
toms  and  institutions  of  the  State  as  are  commonly 
called  Christian,  because  derived  from  and  coincid¬ 
ing  with  Christian  ethics,  are  not  at  all  dependent 
on  the  establishment  of  that  religion.  In  the  eye 
of  the  State  these  laws,  customs  and  institutions 
rest  solely  on  the  intrinsic  value  they  have  socially 
and  politically.  Such  laws,  for  example,  are  not 
enjoined  by  the  body  politic  because  they  are  spe¬ 
cifically  Christian  in  their  origin,  principle  and 
spirit  but  on  account  of  the  fact  that  they  have 
been  serviceable,  if  not  indispensable,  to  good  gov¬ 
ernment.  Partly  in  support,  partly  for  illustra¬ 
tion,  the  following  quotation  is  given  from  the 
“  Opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio  in  the  case  of 
Bloom  vs .  Richards.  2  Ohio  Stat .  Rep.  p.  309  : 

We  have  no  union  of  Church  and  State,  nor  has  our 
government  ever  been  invested  with  authority  to  enforce 
any  religious  observance  simply  because  it  is  religious.  Of 
course,  it  is  no  objection,  but,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  a  high 
recommendation  to  a  legislative  enactment  based  upon  jus¬ 
tice  or  public  policy,  that  it  is  found  to  coincide  with  the 
precepts  of  a  pure  religion  ;  but  the  fact  is  nevertheless  true, 
that  the  power  to  make  laws  rests  in  the  legislative  control 
over  things  temporal  and  not  over  things  spiritual.  Thus 
the  statute  on  which  the  defendant  relies,  prohibiting  com¬ 
mon  labor  on  the  Sabbath,  could  not  stand  for  a  moment  as 
a  law  of  this  State,  if  its  sole  foundation  was  the  Christian 


202  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


duty  of  keeping  that  day  holy,  and  its  sole  motive,  to  en¬ 
force  the  observance  of  that  day.  .  .  .  Acts,  evil  in  their 
nature,  or  dangerous  to  the  public  welfare,  may  be  forbid¬ 
den  and  punished,  though  sanctioned  by  one  religion  and 
prohibited  by  another ;  but  this  creates  no  preference  what¬ 
ever,  for  they  would  be  equally  forbidden  and  punished  if 
all  religions  permitted  them.” 

Laws,  come  they  whence  they  may,  stand  on 
their  own  practical  worth  and  sacred  authority;  and 
usages  depend  for  their  preservation  on  their  own 
merit  and  usefulness ;  and  both,  laws  and  customs, 
rest  most  of  all  upon  appreciative  hearts  on  the 
part  of  the  community.  But,  strange  as  it  may 
seem,  the  notion  is  entertained  that  the  State  can¬ 
not  borrow  light  from  the  Church  except  it  adopt 
the  Church  at  the  same  time.  Ralph  dare  not  sing 
a  song  which  Rachel  has  composed,  unless  he  marry 
Rachel;  the  same  he  must  do  would  he  plot  a 
flower-bed  in  his  own  garden  after  the  pattern  of 
Rachel’s,  or  upon  her  suggestion.  Such  ideas  are 
simply  absurd.  The  State  has  the  best  right  to 
make  any  ethical  principle  its  own,  wherever  found ; 
and  the  fullest  liberty  also  of  following  any  custom, 
no  matter  by  whom  practiced,  if  it  thinks  it  service¬ 
able  to  its  own  purposes;  and  who  would  even 
think  of  upbraiding  it  for  so  doing?  Christians, 
at  least,  will  be  glad  if  they  can  purify  the  morals 
of  the  people  and  thus  secure  the  enactment  and 
observance  of  good  laws;  they  will  rejoice  to  be 
able,  in  their  own  peculiar  way,  to  so  befriend  and 
serve  the  State,  but  without  all  desire  and  intention 
of  a  union  between  it  and  the  Church.  For  this 
they  see  no  necessity  in  order  to  be  of  service  to  the 
body  politic  or  to  society  generally. 

A  fifth  argument  addresses  itself  to  us  as  follows: 


ARGUMENTS  FOR  THEIR  UNION. 


203 


11. 


Men  will  have  a  religion  ;  it  is  of  the  greatest  import¬ 
ance  to  organized  society  that  they  have  the  best  and  most 
serviceable  ;  therefore  the  State  should  adopt  and  encour¬ 
age  the  best  and  discourage  all  others.  In  connection 
with  this  it  is  maintained  that  “if  we  regard  the 
ethical  character  or  personal  morality  of  rulers 
they  are  just  as  fit  as  are  the  masses  to  judge  in 
matters  of  religion. ”  And,  honorable  Sir!  if  they 
are,  who  gives  them  the  right  to  choose  for  the 
masses  and  to  dictate  to  them  what  they  are  to 
believe  to  the  saving  of  their  souls  ?  Here,  in  a 
manner  blunt  and  brazen,  the  despot,  the  king, 
congress,  the  popular  majority,  or  who  mayhap 
wield  the  mighty  power  of  State,  are  set  up  as  the 
judges  and  lords  of  religions  and  churches  for  their 
subjects.  A  new  sovereign  may  therefore  signify 
a  new  faith  for  his  subjects,  and  the  ascendency  of 
another  party  the  dominion  of  another  church,  as 
the  case  may  be. 

The  way  itself,  in  which  a  high  and  holy  prerog¬ 
ative  is  here  ascribed  to  governments,  to  whom  it 
does  not  belong  nor  should  be  given  on  any  terms  al¬ 
ready  indicates  what  manner  of  spirits  they  are  who 
on  such  sandy  soil  as  this  would  build  up  a  church- 
establishment.  It  is  the  old-time  patrician  versus 
the  plebian  revived — only  that  the  former  is  now 
of  deeper  guile  and  the  latter  a  man  of  better 
knowledge.  “  You  and  I,  of  course,  are  above  such 
things;  but  the  ‘  plebs,’  you  know!  and  then, 
what  a  tremendous  power  this  thing  of  religion 
is!”  Submit  to  these  and  kindred  spirits,  and  you 
close  the  door  on  religious  liberty,  while  to  intoler¬ 
ance  and  persecution  it  will  stand  ajar;  and  that 


204  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


the  monster,  bloated  on  the  blood  of  millions  slain 
in  days  gone  by,  will  again  enter — to  that  the  re¬ 
ligious  fanatic  will  see.  No,  we  prefer  the  senti¬ 
ment  of  the  sixteenth  century  to  this,  still  uttered 
here  and  there  in  the  enlightened,  cultured  nine¬ 
teenth.  “  Heretics — says  Luther — must  be  con¬ 
quered,  as  did  the  fathers,  by  writings  and  not 
with  fire.  If  it  were  an  art  to  conquer  a  heretic 
with  fire,  then  were  the  hangmen  the  most  learned 
doctors  on  earth ;  then,  to  this  end,  what  need  be 
there  of  much  study  ?  he  that  can  overpower  an¬ 
other  by  brute-force,  might  then  burn  him  to 
death.  But  heresy  is  a  spiritual  thing,  and  can  be 
destroyed  neither  by  iron,  nor  fire,  nor  water.” 
On  the  other  hand,  “where  the  powers  of  this  world 
presume  to  legislate  in  the  affairs  of  the  soul,  there 
they  interfere  with  God's  own  office  and  can  but 
lead  astray  and  destroy  the  soul.” 

Say  you  that  in  our  day  there  is  little  danger 
of  religious  persecution  ?  Perhaps  not  by  fire  and 
water;  but  there  are  other  forms  of  this  madness, 
more  refined  but  none  the  less  bitter  to  the  spirit 
and  galling  to  the  soul.  Then  remember  too,  that, 
there  is  nothing  so  likely  to  run  wild  as  is  the 
false  religion  ;  and  that  if  anywhere  in  the  world  any 
be  established  it  will  most  likely  be  this.  Guided 
by  the  lessons  of  history,  the  religion  most  intelli¬ 
gent  and  pure  will  utterly  refuse  to  submit  its 
affairs  to  any  State-control.  Give  religion  into  the 
hands  of  the  State,  or  the  State  into  the  hands  of  a 
religion,  and  the  lover  of  religious  and  civil  liberty 
will  forsake  all,  if  need  be,  and  go  in  quest  of  a 
land  such  as,  by  the  goodness  of  God,  our  own  land 
is  now. 


11. 


ARGUMENTS  FOR  THEIR  UNION. 


205 


In  the  sixth  place,  to  win  the  favor  of  the  clergy 
and  of  church-inembers  in  high  position,  the  ma¬ 
terial  advantages  supposed  to  be  offered  by  an  estab¬ 
lishment  are  held  up,  and  that,  at  times,  with  con¬ 
siderable  effect.  In  addition  to  this,  the  safer 
support  of  the  Church  is  strongly  urged ;  it  is  said 
to  secure  congregations  and  clergies  in  such  locali¬ 
ties  as  otherwise  would  never  be  reached.  The 
first  and  the  last  inducement,  however,  is  the  tem¬ 
poral  advantage  to  the  ministry ;  and,  after  the 
manner  of  man  generally,  Christian  pastors  too  are 
but  frail  human  beings;  and  there  is  nothing  so 
seductive  as  the  glitter  of  a  dollar  and  the  sport  of 
a  little  authority. 

In  answer  to  the  claims  here  put  forth,  as  to 
all  of  a  similar  kind,  it  may  be  answered  that  the 
Church  is  perfectly  able  to  provide  for  itself.  In 
evidence  of  this  we  need  but  point  to  the  free 
churches  of  America.  The  number,  size,  cost,  fin¬ 
ish  and  equipments  of  the  edifices  for  purposes  of 
worship,  education  and  charities,  compare  favor¬ 
ably  with  those  of  any  State-church,  especially 
when  we  take  into  consideration  their  compara¬ 
tive  youthfulness.  These  free  churches  do  not 
only  amply  supply  their  own  wants,  they  even 
have  men  and  means  to  spare  for  foreign  lands. 
In  an  establishment  money  may  come  more  freely 
and  be  more  plentiful;  but  over  against  this,  its 
appropriation,  being  largely  controlled  by  the  State, 
is  in  many  cases  very  injudicious* *  and  in  some 

•  * 

*  The  ratio  of  Romanists  to  Protestants  in  Prussia,  e.  g. 
is  1  to  3,  yet  the  sums  paid  out  to  them  in  1881  were 
$539,154  and  $543,920  respectively!  In  France  of  53,000,000 
francs,  51,500,000  francs  go  to  the  Romish  church. 


206  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


positively  unjust.  Men  doing  the  work  of  the 
Church  are  dismissed  with  a  beggarly  pittance 
while  others,  who  do  little  more  than  externally 
support  the  dignity  of  high  position,  receive  thou¬ 
sands  of  pounds,  or  Reichsthaler,  and  all  the  hon¬ 
ors  beside.  Such  wrongs  are,  in  self-governing 
churches,  almost  wholly  unknown.  Here  the  com¬ 
pensation  adjusts  itself  according  to  the  ability,  in¬ 
dustry  and  merit  of  the  incumbent. 

“  If  the  people,'1  says  an  advocate  of  establish¬ 
ments, — Henry,  Lord  Brougham — “are  to  provide 
for  the  support  of  their  own  pastors,  so  must  they 
select  them  also  .  .  .  Who  can  doubt  the  evils  to 
which  this  must  give  rise?"  It  must  give  rise  to 
no  evils  whatever;  that  here  and  there  it  does,  we 
will  not  deny ;  there  is  nothing  so  good  on  earth 
but  that  it  can  be  and  is  abused.  However,  are  there 
no  evils  connected  with  the  appointment  and  sup¬ 
port  of  pastors  for  the  people  as  coming  “  from 
above?”  and  are  these  evils  less  and  less  baneful? 
Between  a  disaffected  church-member  on  the  one 
hand  and  nepotism,  simony  and  defraudation  on 
the  other,  if  choose  I  must,  always  give  me  the 
former.  But  what  this  noble  advocate  seems  to 
deprecate  more  than  anything  else  is,  that  they 
who  support  the  pastor  “must  select  him  also;” 
and  indeed  they  must.  The  choice  of  his  own 
pastor  we  hold  to  be  a  divinely  given  and  inde¬ 
feasible  right  of  every  Christian  —  the  right  of 
every  individual  congregation.  I  call  my  pastor 
my  minister,  one  who  ministers  in  holy  things  to 
me  and  for  me.  His  official  acts  are  my  acts  and 
the  acts  of  the  entire  congregation  of  my  con- 


§11. 


ARGUMENTS  FOR  THEIR  UNION. 


207 


nection ;  I  and  the  congregation  are  accountable  to 
God  for  his  ministry,  therefore  we  must  have  the 
right  to  select,  to  correct,  to  depose,  our  own  pastor, 
and  do  so,  of  course,  according  to  divine  direction; 
and,  as  before  God  the  responsibility  remains  ours, 
do  we  what  we  may,  the  exercise  of  the  rights 
given  us  must  remain  in  our  hands  likewise. 

Again,  and  from  the  same  authority  and  in 
the  same  spirit,  “If  any  one  quality  is  requisite  in 
a  pastor  it  is  his  authority  with  the  flock.”  What 
authority  is  here  meant,  a  legal,  a  police-authority 
or  the  spiritual?  If  the  latter:  that  he  has  in  his 
capacity  as  a  servant  also  of  God  and  that  he  exer¬ 
cises  in  the  use  only  of  God’s  word ;  as  to  this  the 
State  can  not  in  the  least  strengthen  him.  But  if 
the  former  be  meant,  as  is  most  likely  the  case,  no 
intelligent  Christian  will  want  him  to  be  vested 
with  it.  No  Christian  congregation,  clearly  aware 
of  its  own  rights  and  duties,  will  accept  of  a  half¬ 
pastor  and  half-policeman  as  its  minister.  “  Not 
that  we  have  lordship  over  your  faith,  but  are  help¬ 
ers  of  your  joy:  for  by  faith  ye  stand.”  “Neither 
as  lording  it  over  the  charge  allotted  to  you,  but 
making  yourselves  ensamples  to  the  flock.”  Thus 
say  Paul  and  Peter. 

From  this  whole  argumentation  it  becomes 
apparent  what  is  the  price  paid  for  any  material 
advantages  possibly  accruing  to  the  Church  from 
any  such  compact  with  the  State.  When  this  fur¬ 
nishes  the  means  for  the  erection  of  edifices,  for  the 
support  of  the  clergy ;  then  also,  without  much 
deference  to  the  wishes  of  the  people,  will  it  build 
to  suit  itself,  then  will  it  appoint  pastors  as  it 


208  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


may  deem  best  and  most  serviceable  to  itself. 
Thus  it  is  a  matter  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the 
State-Church  of  the  German  Empire  that  appoint¬ 
ments  are  made  wholly  repugnant  to  the  people 
concerned — men  loud  in  their  denial  of  doctrines 
most  dear  to  the  hearts  of  the  people  are  sent  to 
serve  these  as  pastors,  all  protestations  to  the  con¬ 
trary  notwithstanding.  The  high  price  paid  the 
State  by  the  Church  for  its  special  “protection” 
and  for  the  dollars, — as  unrighteously  collected  so 
unrighteously  expended — thrown  out  to  it,  is  the 
treasure  of  spiritual  and  ecclesiastical  liberty,  yea, 
in  many  cases,  the  very  peace  of  conscience. 

• 

A  seventh ,  and  the  last ,  argument  we  desire  to 
notice  is  that  these  establishments  are  necessary  for 
the  unity  of  the  Church  and  for  uniformity  in  its  gov¬ 
ernment  and  cultus.  It  must  be  conceded  that  when 
the  government  itself  nationalizes  a  certain  speci¬ 
fied  religion,  puts  a  premium  upon  membership  in 
the  church  of  its  connection,  simply  tolerates  dis¬ 
sent  and  forcibly  suppresses  what  it  conceives  to 
be  heresy — then  many  a  man,  either  from  dread  of 
evil  or  from  desire  for  gain  and  ease,  will  suppress 
his  honest  convictions,  forego  the  exercise  of  sacred 
rights,  shirk  his  duty,  sear  his  conscience,  and  con¬ 
form!  That  is,  he  will  profess  as  a  churchman  and 
believe  as  a  dissenter.  Church-establishments  are 
productive  not  of  unity  in  the  faith  as  much  as  of 
hypocrisy  and  infidelity.  Faith  and  unity  in  the 
faith,  from  the  nature  of  things,  must  be  spon¬ 
taneous  to  be  real,  and  therefore  entirely  free  in 
their  development  and  expression.  When  brought 
about  at  a  sacrifice  of  religious  freedom  and  by 


11. 


ARGUMENTS  FOR  THEIR  UNION. 


209 


other  than  spiritual  means,  such  as  legal  coer¬ 
cion,  rewards,  punishments,  and  the  like,  they  are 
utterly  worthless.  Forcing  silence  upon  a  dissenter 
may  prevent  the  spread  of  his  convictions;  the 
same  may  be  effected,  and  perhaps  with  greater 
certainty,  by  other  appliances  of  the  inquisition, 
but  the  one  is  as  criminally  wrong  as  the  other. 

Uniformity  in  ecclesiastical  government,  in 
usages,  in  the  order  of  worship,  in  the  use  of  books, 
in  the  observance  of  days,  and  in  externals  of  this 
sort  generally,  is,  for  practical  reasons,  very  desirable 
and  important ;  but  it  is  by  no  means  essential  to 
the  Church.  In  all  these  things  Christians  are 
free  to  order  everything  as  they  may  deem  best 
and  most  edifying  to  themselves.  Matters  of  mere 
forms  and  rites  are  not  divinely  prescribed ;  and 
uniformity  in  them  at  the  expense  of  liberty  be¬ 
stowed  by  God  is  too  dearly  bought.  Churches 
should  suffer  no  undue  interference  with  them¬ 
selves  in  the  regulation  of  their  own  affairs;  no, 
not  by  the  State  nor  by  the  denomination  of  their 
belonging. 

In  the  .abstract,  supposing  but  not  granting 
the  correctness  of  the  assertion  above  put  forth  in 
favor  of  State-churchism,  it  must  be  allowed  that 
the  argument  is  as  much  adverse  as  it  is  favorable 
to  an  establishment.  If  the  religion  adopted  be 
false — as  is  most  likely  the  case,  since  to  a  thousand 
false  beliefs  there  is  but  one  true  faith — the  true 
but  not  established  form  will  have  as  little  oppor¬ 
tunity  of  propagating  itself  and  preserving  its  in¬ 
tegrity  as  would  the  false  systems  were  the  true 
established. 

9* 


210  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


While  we  freely  admit  that  some  good  can 
result  from  a  union  of  Church  and  State  for  both, 
we  hold  that  in  no  case  the  possible  good  can  out¬ 
weigh  the  evil  —  in  some  cases  the  wrong — neces¬ 
sarily  accompanying  it.  So  we  must  conclude  by 
reviewing  and  examining  the  arguments  pro — as 
far  as  these  can  decide,  that  Ralph  and  Rachel 
ought  not  to  be  married. 

§  12.  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THEIR  UNION — CON¬ 
FIRMED. 

In  the  first  place  we  propose  to  show  that  there 
is  no  need  of  such  a  union .  It  is  to  be  presupposed 
that  where  an  alliance  of  this  kind  is  sought  there 
must  be  some  reason  assigned  which  would  seem 
to  demand  its  consummation  or  make  it  appear 
advisable.  Is  it  the  State  that  woos  and  sues  for 
the  hand  of  the  Church,  it  must  have  an  object  in 
view.  This,  unless  it  be  one  morally  objection¬ 
able,  must  be  the  control  of  the  Church  either  for 
the  benefit  of  religion  itself  or  for  its  importance 
to  the  State,  or  both.  Other  legitimate  purposes 
besides  these  are  not  conceivable.  That  the  State 
has  need  of  the  Church,  and  in  what  way,  we  have 
shown  at  great  length.  But  that  on  this  account 
their  union  were  necessary,  or  advisable  even, 
would  follow  only  then  if  the  State  could  not  be 
served  by  the  Church  on  any  other  condition  or  in 
no  other  way  as  practicable.  Must  Cuba  and  must 
the  Sunda  Group  be  annexed  to  these  United  States 
simply  because  so  many  of  our  good  citizens  can¬ 
not  do  without  their  “havana,”  and  because  their 


12. 


ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THEIR  UNION.  211 


good  wives  cannot  be  happy  without  an  occasional 
cup  of  unsophisticated  Java?  It  is  very  doubtful 
whether  annexation  would  render  these  highly 
prized  articles,  with  which  those  sunny  nooks  of 
the  world  now  favor  us,  more  pure,  more  plentiful, 
more  delicious,  and  cheaper  than  at  present  we  find 
them.  One  thing  is  sure,  we  can  enjoy  these  lux¬ 
uries  whether  Cuba  or  Java  belong  to  us  or  not. 
Likewise  can  the  State  enjoy  the  infinitely  more 
precious  fruit  produced  by  the  Church  without 
embodying  the  latter. 

Called  by  their  Master  to  be  “the  salt  of  the 
earth  ”  and  “the  light  of  the  world,”  Christians  in¬ 
dividually  and  collectively  make  themselves  felt 
by  their  intercourse  with  men  and  for  the  common 
good.  The  salutary  principles  which  they  enter¬ 
tain  with  reference  to  all  the  relations  of  life,  they 
also  teach  and  practice;  and  this  results  in  a  reflex 
influence  on  all  the  fundamental  forms  of  organized 
society  and  social  life  generally.  In  this  way  they 
counteract  much  evil,  and  preserve  and  further 
what  is  good  in  the  community;  and  this  as  effect¬ 
ively  as  it  could  be  done  were  the  Church  as  such 
formally  made  a  factor  in  the  government  of  the 
land.  Concerning  the  significance,  the  modes,  the 
proprieties,  and  the  true  purposes,  of  informal  in¬ 
tercourse  and  fellowship;  concerning  the  object 
and  acquisition,  the  use  and  abuse  of  property  in 
all  its  forms;  concerning  courtship  and  betrothal, 
marriage  and  divorce ;  concerning  the  rights  and 
duties  of  parents  and  of  children ;  concerning  the 
rights  and  privileges,  the  duties  and  obligations,  of 
citizenship  in  both  the  State  and  the  Church ;  con- 


212  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


cerning  everything  that  can  in  any  way  affect  the 
State  and  affect  it  either  for  good  or  bad — Christians 
possess  a  superior  wisdom  and  exert  a  beneficent 
influence.  And,  ’tis  not  from  an  establishment  of 
any  particular  system  of  religion  that  a  government 
derives  the  blessings  here  indicated,  but  rather  from 
the  fact  that  it  has  Christians  for  its  subjects,  and 
that  these  in  their  own  individual  and  churchly 
capacity,  and  free  from  the  State-control,  pervade 
everything  as  best  they  can  with  the  spirit  of  their 
holy  religion.  In  this  wise  can  the  State  reap  the 
fruits  of  any  ethical  principle  and  power  within 
the  possession  of  the  Church.  By  a  union  with 
this  it  can  gain  nothing  whatever  of  things  belong¬ 
ing  to  the  sphere  of  civil  jurisprudence,  and  of 
which  it  could  not  possess  itself  just  as  well  with¬ 
out  such  a  union.  The  only  gain  to  a  government 
— if  gain  it  can  be  called — accruing  from  an  Es¬ 
tablishment  is,  that  it  can  in  consequence  thereon 
enact  and  enforce  laws,  found  and  control  institu¬ 
tions,  and  enjoin  the  observance  of  days  and  cus¬ 
toms,  such  as  have  a  religious  basis  and  bearing, 
and  for  which  no  sufficient  civil  or  jural  founda¬ 
tion  can  be  found.  In  other  words:  when  the  State 
desires  to  go  beyond  its  divinely  appointed  sphere 
and  trespass  on  the  domain  belonging  to  religion, 
then  must  it  enter  into  a  formal  compact  with  the 
Church  in  order  to  secure  to  itself  the  right — or 
the  appearance  of  right — to  do  the  Church’s  busi¬ 
ness.  But  to  do  its  own  business,  and  to  do  it 
well,  there  is  not  the  least  need  of  entangling  al¬ 
liances. 

Nor  is  there  any  need  of  them  for  the  Church. 


12. 


ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THEIR  UNION.  213 


All  the  latter  requires  at  the  hands  of  the  State  is 
protection ;  to  this  it  is  entitled  and  this  it  demands 
as  a  matter  of  right  under  all  circumstances.  When 
protected  in  the  free  exercise  of  all  its  rights  and 
duties,  and  when  separate  from  the  State,  it  is  in 
the  very  best  condition  to  attend  to  its  work  and 
to  prosper.  If  not — if  it  needs  more  than  protec¬ 
tion  as  heretofore  described — if  it  needs  the  co¬ 
operation  and  support  of  human  governments  to 
propagate  itself,  then  is  it  not  worthy  to  be  named 
a  church. 

No  fears  need  be  entertained  that  by  their 
complete  separation  either  will  lose  anything 
worth  having,  that  they  will  on  that  account  be 
found  less  efficient,  or  that  either  will  become  de¬ 
moralized — an  old  notion  wrhich  obtains  to  this 
very  day  even  in  our  own  country  whose  history 
has  more  than  any  other  disproved  its  correctness. 
President  Madison ,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  Dr.  De 
La  Motta ,  wrote  as  follows  touching  this  point  : 
“Among  the  features  peculiar  to  the  political  sys¬ 
tem  of  the  United  States,  is  the  perfect  equality  of 
rights  which  it  secures  to  every  religious  sect. 
And  it  is  particularly  pleasing  to  observe  in  the 
good  citizenship  of  such  as  have  been  distrusted 
and  oppressed  elsewhere,  a  happy  illustration  of 
the  safety  and  success  of  this  experiment  of  a  just 
and  benignant  policy.  Equal  laws,  protecting 
equal  rights,  are  found,  as  they  ought  to  be  pre¬ 
sumed,  the  best  guarantee  of  loyalty  and  love  of 
country;  as  well  as  best  calculated  to  cherish  that 
mutual  respect  and  good  will  among  citizens  of 
every  religious  denomination  which  are  necessary 


214  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


to  social  harmony  and  most  favorable  to  the  ad¬ 
vancement  of  truth.”  (Writings  of  M.  Vol.  3,  p. 
179).  Again,  in  a  letter  to  F.  L.  Schaeffer,  of  Dec. 
3,  1821,  he  says:  “The  experience  of  the  United 
States  is  a  happy  disproof  of  the  error  so  long 
rooted  in  the  unenlightened  minds  of  well-mean¬ 
ing  Christians,  as  well  as  in  the  corrupt  hearts  of 
persecuting  usurpers,  that  without  a  legal  incor¬ 
poration  of  religion  and  civil  polity,  neither  could 
be  supported.'1  (Ib.  p.  242).  “Now  reasoning  from 
analogy”  —  says  another  on  this  subject  —  “we 
should  say  these  great  corporations  would,  like  all 
other  associations,  be  likely  to  obtain  their  ends 
most  perfectly,  if  that  end  ivere  kept  singly  in  view” 
He  who  would  be  a  first-class  pianist  will  do  well 
not  to  follow  black-smithing;  a  politician,  for  some 
reason  or  other,  never  does  well  as  a  pastor;  then, 
there  would  seem  to  be  some  incongruity  in  a 
shrewd  lawyer  and  sober  Christian  both  in  one 
person.  Religion  and  politics  are  best  kept  sep¬ 
arate  ;  and  Church  and  State  have  each  enough  to 
do  at  home,  and  the  work  will  be  best  done  when 
each  attends  to  its  own  business.  We  hold  that  in 
our  land  where  this  iiolicy  is  the  predominant 
principle  of  action,  as  observed  by  both  State  and 
Church,  churches  are  in  a  condition  as  pure  and 
prosperous  as  are  those  of  the  same  name  else¬ 
where,  but  tied  to  the  skirts  of  queens  or  kneeling 
at  the  feet  of  kings — yea,  far  more  pure  and  pros¬ 
perous.  And  if  a  gain  to  our  churches,  is  this 
policy  a  loss  to  our  government?  No,  though  as 
such  it  neither  professes  nor  propagates  religion,  it 
is  Christian  all  the  more  by  reason  of  its  free 


12. 


ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THEIR  UNION.  215 


Christian  subjects,  and  as  strong  and  thrifty  as 
any  on  account  of  their  loyal  devotion.  That  the 
lack  of  a  national  Church  is  a  loss  and  weakness 
to  our  nation,  perhaps,  would  indeed  be  to  those 
concerned  a  new  idea. 

In  the  second  place  we  call  attention  to  the  con¬ 
fusion  likely  to  result  from  a  union  of  Church  and 
State .  It  is  the  calling  of  both  bodies  in  part  to 
educate,  but  each  in  its  own  sphere  and  in  things 
thereto  belonging.  Now  it  is  of  the  utmost  im¬ 
portance  to  both  organizations  that  in  theory  and 
practice  there  be  no  confounding  of  reason  with 
revelation,  of  political  morals  with  Christian  ethics, 
of  common  justice  and  equity  with  scriptural  holi¬ 
ness  and  propriety,  of  judicial  clemency  with  evan¬ 
gelical  mercy,  in  short,  of  the  principles  of  govern¬ 
ment  with  the  doctrines  of  religion.  That  such 
must  be  the  inevitable  result  of  Church-stateism, 
we  do  not  affirm;  but  that  such  has  been  invari¬ 
ably  the  case  can  not  be  denied.  It  stands  to  rea¬ 
son  that  when  laws  are  based  in  part,  and  in  some 
cases  wholly,  on  religious  grounds  in  place  of 
strictly  rational  and  political  moral  principles,  the 
distinction  between  the  two  will  be  more  or  less 
lost  sight  of  by  both  the  governing  body  and  the 
body  governed. 

Dr.  Doellinger,  the  noted  leader  of  the  Old 
Catholic  movement,  in  his  work  on  11  The  Church 
and  the  Churches,”  etc.,  gives  us  many  instances 
of  the  Babylonian  disorders  consequent  upon  an 
establishment  of  religion.  Speaking  of  the  condi¬ 
tion  of  affairs  within  the  papal  Dominion,  he  says: 
“As  the  three  main  grievances  the  disaffected  point 


216  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


to  the  civil  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops,  the  privi¬ 
leges  especially  accorded  to  the  clergy  before  the 
common  law  and  the  immunities  they  enjoy,  and 
lastly  to  the  tribunal  of  the  inquisition.  The 
bishops,  who  had  prisons  of  their  own,  tried  and 
punished  in  all  matters  pertaining  to  persons  and 
property  of  the  Church,  also  in  matters  of  sexual 
relations,  in  cases  of  blasphemy  and  the  trespass 
of  laws  regulating  fast  and  festival-days.  The  car¬ 
dinal  and  bishop  of  Sinigaglia  in  the  year  1844 
ordained  that  young  men  and  maidens  must  not 
make  presents  to  one  another,  that  the  parents 
must  not  allow  this  to  be  done,  and  that  for  any 
transgression  of  this  command  they  must  atone  by 
imprisonment  of  fifteen  days  whether  the  guilty 
be  father,  son,  or  daughter.  In  1850  the  bishops 
of  the  provincial  synod  of  Ferno  threatened  with 
punishment  every  innkeeper  who  on  days  of  fast¬ 
ings  would  give  meat  to  his  guests  unless  the  latter 
brought  a  permit  from  a  physician  and  a  priest .  .  . 
In  1841,  Fra  Filippo  Vertolotti,  inquisitor  at  Pesaro, 
issued  an  edict  in  which,  subject  to  many  penal¬ 
ties  including  excommunication,  everybody  is  de¬ 
manded  to  give  information  of  any  churchly  tres¬ 
pass  coming  to  his  knowledge  ....  Still  more 
doubtful  is  the  matter  of  placing  the  power  of 
police  into  the  hands  of  the  clergy;  here  it  is  diffi¬ 
cult  for  them  to  avoid  the  application  of  other 
than  the  principles  of  a  Christian  judgment.  The 
police  is,  in  a  land  under  an  absolute  government, 
in  fact  omnipotent ;  and,  in  its  contact  and  war¬ 
fare  with  daily  life,  in  times  of  political  revolt  and 
treason,  it  makes  a  tyrannical  use  of  this  its  un- 


12. 


ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THEIR  UNION.  217 


bounded  power — things  are  suffered  to  pass  unpun¬ 
ished  which,  evangelically  viewed,  are  grievous 
sins,  and  other  things  are  punished  in  which  a 
Christian  can  detect  no  wrong.  Is  it  to  be  wondered 
at  that  the  people  can  not  see  their  way  between  the 
priestly  character  and  this  antagonistic  police  activity ?” 
(K.  u.  K.;  P.  u.  P.,  p.  575,  etc.)  Yea,  is  it  surpris¬ 
ing  that  the  priest  himself  at  times  knows  not 
whether  he  is  acting  the  priest  or  the  policeman? 
that  the  poor  people  know  not  whether  they  are 
obeying  religious  precepts  or  civil  laws?  Nor  are 
these  things  exceptions,  and  confined  to  the  papal 
hierarchy.  Such  confusion  has  accompanied  re¬ 
ligious  establishments  from  their  beginning  and 
at  all  times.  From  the  very  first,  purely  civil 
transgressions  were  made  subject  to  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction ;  while  on  the  other  hand,  purely  re¬ 
ligious  offenses  were  punished  by  the  State.  So 
many  were  the  privileges  accorded  the  clergy  un¬ 
der  Constantine  the  Great,  so  great  were  the  ad¬ 
vantages  connected  with  any  churchly  office,  that 
special  legislation  became  necessary  to  restrain  the 
press  for  holy  orders.  u  And  the  ecclesiastical  sov¬ 
ereignty  of  the  middle  ages  shows  a  theocracy  after 
the  Mosaic  pattern,  in  which  the  Church  rules  over 
the  State,  in  which  the  invisible  Christ  is  regarded 
as  a  new  Moses,  who  leads  His  people  through  the 
wilderness  to  the  promised  land,  is  understood 
rather  as  a  Law-giver  and  Judge  of  the  universe 
than  as  a  Savior,  but  in  which,  in  reality,  Christ’s 
authority  must  give  place  to  that  of  the  Church 
and  its  visible  Stadtholder;  in  which  there  is  fash¬ 
ioned  a  comprehensive  system  of  law,  not  merely 
10 


218  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


for  doctrine  but  also  for  the  life — a  canonical  law  in 
which  an  infinite  number  of  religious  and  moral 
commandments  appear  as  external  judicial  regula¬ 
tions,  in  which  transgression  is  punished  by  the 
secular  arm  which  lends  to  the  Church  its  sword. 
In  opposition  to  this  the  Reformation  protested. 
.  .  .  Not  the  less  was  the  Old  Testament”  —  the 
theocratic  mode — “of  education  continued  in  the 
Protestant  State-Church  .  .  .  Not  until  our  own 
time  was  the  constraint  of  the  State-Church  abol¬ 
ished  by  the  great  principle  of  religious  liberty .” 
(Martensen,  Ch.  Ethics,  §  144.) 

’Tis  true,  that  in  our  own  time  the  distinction 
between  affairs  politic  and  affairs  religious  is  full 
well  understood  hj  the  more  intelligent  in  all 
lands,  so  are  also  the  rights  of  men  by  reason 
of  civil  and  of  religious  liberty ;  but  that  the 
practice  as  fully  accords  with  the  theory,  in  coun¬ 
tries  where  Church  and  State  are  still  united,  no 
one  will  venture  to  assert.  Rather  is  there  still 
woful  confusion  and,  under  the  circumstances, 
nothing  better  can  be  expected.  Ministers  of  the 
Gospel  are  still  ex-officio  officers  of  the  State ; 
officers  of  State  are  still  in  the  same  manner 
officers  of  the  Church,  and  to  which  they  are 
now  and  then  inimically  disposed ;  religious  du¬ 
ties  are  still  enforced  by  the  secular  arm,  and 
civil  laws,  so  called,  are  still  based  on  religious 
grounds.  With  all  the  great  lessons  of  history, 
and  with  all  the  light  now  shining  in  dark  places, 
to  profit  by,  Babel  is  as  yet  not  altogether  razed — 
but  what  is  gone  and  what  remains  of  it,  mightily 
warns  us  against  a  union  of  Church  and  State. 


§12. 


ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THEIR  UNION.  219 


In  the  third  place ,  their  union  necessarily  involves 
an  infringement  upon  civil  and  religious  freedom.  Of 
course,  it  is  maintained  that  if  there  be  any  coer¬ 
cion  of  any  religionists  and  oppression  of  any  citi¬ 
zen,  such  evils  are  mere  accidental  outgrowths,  that 
they  are  not  intended  and  are  in  no  way  an  essen¬ 
tial  feature  of  the  compact.  That  however  is  a  mere 
evasion  ;  by  pointing  to  a  theory,  our  attention  is 
to  be  diverted  from  the  facts  in  the  case.  Were 
there  a  State  all  whose  subjects  are  religious,  and 
of  the  same  faith  and  church  besides,  then  there 
might  be  some  truth  in  the  assurances  given.  But 
that  is  supposing  an  ideal  never  and  nowhere  real¬ 
ized.  There  are  no  such  States  as  here  assumed ; 
all  bodies  politic  include  unbelievers  and  believers, 
and  both  of  these  classes  are  again  divided  and 
subdivided  among  themselves.  These  are  the  facts 
in  the  case;  and  according  to  the  premises  so  given 
we  must  shape  our  discussion. 

Now  in  an  Establishment  dissent  may  not  be  polit¬ 
ically  punished  positively,  but  negatively  it  always 
is  more  or  less.  He  who  in  the  exercise  of  his  God- 
given  right  and  for  conscience’  sake,  remains  out¬ 
side  of  the  churchly  communion  embodied  in  the 
State,  must  suffer ;  there  is  no  help  for  it.  If  non¬ 
conformity  has  not  been  declared  culpable  directly, 
as  is  frequently  the  case,  then  recourse  is  had  to 
apparently  milder  forms  'of  its  resentment.  Then 
is  this  policy  substituted,  namely:  no  threats,  no 
reproach,  no  punishment,  no  banishment,  no  rack, 
no,  nothing  of  the  kind,  but :  promises,  rewards 
of  distinction,  of  privileges,  of  office  and  of  honor  in 
Church  and  State,  to  all  who  do  conform.  Now,  if 


220  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


to  deprive,  even  by  implication  if  not  by  law,  a 
dissenting  but  otherwise  good  and  faithful  citizen 
of  rights,  opportunities  and  advantages  political, 
for  no  other  reason  than  that  of  his  non-conform¬ 
ity,  is  no  oppression,  then  of  course  are  church- 
establishments  not  incompatible  with  civil  liberty. 

As  they  detrimentally  affect  the  individual’s 
political  status,  so  also  his  moral  and  religious  con¬ 
dition.  No  matter  what  may  be  said  to  the  con¬ 
trary,  it  lies  in  the  spirit  and  nature  of  the  thing 
that  religion  be  not  left  entirely  free.  “ Humani 
juris  et  naturalis  protestatis  est  unicuique  quod  putave- 
rit  colere ,  nec  alii  obest  aut  prodest  alterius  religio .  Sed 
nec  religionis  est  cogere  religionem ,*  writes  Tertullian 
to  the  pro-consul  Scapula  (cap.  2).  Religion  pro¬ 
duced  by  force  and  a  religion  resorting  to  force,  is 
simply  no  religion  at  all ;  and  there  is  no  church 
in  Christendom  but  that  will  subscribe  to  this 
eminently  truthful  and  important  statement.  Not¬ 
withstanding  this  there  are  some  religionists  who 
cannot  forbear  to  resort  to  coercion.  They  covet 
the  strong  arm  of  the  State  to  lean  on,  and  to  be 
employed  for  the  purpose  of  church-extension.  To 
accomplish  this  desire,  and  to  give  to  the  whole 
the  appearance  of  order  and  right,  their  specific 
creed  is  made  a  part  of  the  common  law  of  the 
land.  Then,  whoever  derides  the  creed  derides  the 
law ;  and  whoever  derides  the  law,  must  suffer 
its  penalty.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Church-State 
legislates  and  operates  in  favor  of  this  particular 

*  It  is  a  right  of  mankind  and  a  privilege  of  nature  that 
everyone  worship  as  he  thinks  best:  the  religion  of  one 
neither  harms  nor  helps  another.  It  is  not  the  nature  of 
religion  to  force  religion. 


§  12.  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THEIR  UNION.  221 


creed  and  disparages  all  others.  But  since  “  relig¬ 
ion  can  never  be  safe  and  sound  unless  when  it  is 
left  free  to  every  man’s  choice,  wholly  uninfluenced 
by  the  operation  either  of  punishment  or  reward 
on  the  part  of  the  magistrate,”  the  whole  proceed¬ 
ing  is  an  injury  to  the  Church  established,  and  a 
wrong  to  all  others,  these  being  entitled  to  equal 
rights.  - 

Without  the  concurrence  of  the  government 
an  established  church  is  unable  to  add,  to  abolish 
or  to  amend  a  single  article  of  faith;  nor  can  it  ex¬ 
ecute  discipline  on  offending  officials  or  govern  its 
own  affairs  to  any  great  extent,  as  it  might  be 
pleased  to  do  were  it  left  free.  For  a  little  license 
it  sacrifices  the  best  part  of  its  liberty,  and  for  the 
sake  of  a  little  influence  and  power  in  one  direction 
it  weakens  itself  in  a  hundred  others.  An  estab¬ 
lished  church  is  really  a  church  in  bonds,  as  thou¬ 
sands  of  its  members  know  and  have  acknowl¬ 
edged.  And  whereas  freedom  of  conscience  and 
of  self-government  is  a  vital  principle  of  all  true 
religion  and  an  indispensable  condition  of  its  real 
advancement,  an  Establishment  cannot  be  favora¬ 
ble  to  the  cause  of  truth. 

On  the  other  hand,  upon  what  principle  of 
right,  natural  or  revealed,  can  any  government 
and  any  one  church  combine  and  cooperate,  be  it 
never  so  little,  against  any  other  faith  and  church 
within  the  same  nation?  Granting  even  that  one 
church  embraces  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  in¬ 
habitants,  and  by  its  teachings  is  much  more  con¬ 
ducive  than  the  other  to  good  government,  it  must 
be  borne  in  mind  that  it  is  not  simply  a  question 


222  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION. 


IV. 


wholly  of  profit  and  loss.  It  will  not  do  to  point, 
by  way  of  precedent  and  for  the  purpose  of  justifi¬ 
cation,  to  the  Old  Testament  theocracy.  That  was 
an  anomaly  and  brought  about  by  God’s  own  spe¬ 
cial  ordering.  Just  as  well  might  a  man  slay  his 
only  son,  and  then,  to  justify  his  crime,  point  back 
to  the  command  of  God  whereby  Abraham — and 
nobody  but  Abraham — was  required  to  offer  Isaac. 
Just  as  well,  too,  might  the  English  cast  out  and 
destroy  the  Chinese  — *  if  not  at  the  point  of  the 
bayonet  then  with  the  whisk  of  the  somniferous 
poppy — and  having  possessed  themselves  of  that 
sunny  land,  cry  out :  “  Did  not  the  children  of 
Israel  by  divine  behest  thus  deal  with  the  children 
of  Anak  ?”  Certainly,  the  analogy  is  convincing  ; 
for  is  not  John  Bull  in  every  way  a  model  Chris¬ 
tian  and  John  Chinaman  an  abominable  heathen? 
is  not  the  one  as  good  as  Abraham  and  the  other 
as  bad  as  Anak  ?  Being  a  statesman  and  a  church¬ 
man  all  in  one,  we  must  allow  that  John  Bull  has 
a  right  to  quote  the  Scriptures;  yet  not  to  misinter¬ 
pret  and  misapply  them.  No,  from  the  Holy  Book 
nothing  can  be  adduced  to  justify  an  infringement 
of  religious  liberty  ;  and  especially  not  by  the  State 
to  the  injury  of  its  subjects.  Among  all  the  rights 
of  an  individual  there  is  none  so  sacred  and  pre¬ 
cious  as  is  that  of  worshiping  God  according  to  the 
dictates  of  one’s  conscience ;  and  if  there  be  one 
duty  greater  than  all  others  which  the  State  is 
called  to  perform  it  is  that  it  protect  its  every  citi¬ 
zen  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  this  right.  This  being 
the  case,  that  government  and  that  church  which 
coalesce  and  collude  to  make  the  secular  power  an 


12. 


ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THEIR  UNION.  223 


instrument  of  advancing  one  form  of  religious  be¬ 
lief  to  the  detriment  of  another,  are  guilty  of  sub¬ 
verting  the  fundamental  idea  and  object  of  State- 
existence.  Now,  do  not  devise  for  us  an  ideal 
'  church-state  whereof  this  criminal  feature  is  not 
essential,  but  point  out  one  instance  where  it  is  not 
the  case,  and  we  will  amend  our  proposition  and 
say  that  by  a  union  of  Church  and  State  the  liber¬ 
ties  of  the  subjects  are  abridged  only  u  by  mere 
accident.” 

Our  fourth  argument ,  and  to  which  we  are  led 
by  the  preceding,  is  the  positive  wrong-doing  con¬ 
nected  with  their  union.  That  is,  not  only  does  a 
church-state  fail  to  do  right  and  hinder  a  large 
proportion  of  its  citizens  from  doing  right,  but 
these  are  coerced  to  do  what  is  morally  wrong.  We 
refer  to  the  compulsory  support  of  religion  to  which 
they  are  subjected.  An  established  church,  being 
in  a  manner  a  department  of  State,  invariably 
looks  to  this  for  the  supply  of  its  material  wants. 
The  funds  expended  in  its  behalf  are,  generally 
speaking,  the  revenues  arising  from  the  accumu¬ 
lated  property  at  some  time  donated  and  be¬ 
queathed  for  churchly  uses,  but  by  far  the  greater 
amount  is  taken  from  the  public  treasury.  In 
other  words,  state-churches  are  supported  by  way 
of  an  indiscriminate  taxation ;  and  ’tis  in  this  we 
see  a  crying  wrong,  a  violation  of  the  rights  of  con¬ 
science,  an  utter  disregard  of  all  justice  and  of  the 
teachings  of  the  divine  word.*  Or  will  any  one 
justify  an  enforced  support  of  religion?  And  this 

*In  England  compulsory  church-rates  were  abolished 
in  1868  so  far  as  dissenters  were  concerned. 


224  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


is  not,  with  Christians  at  least,  a  question  of  dol¬ 
lars  and  cents,  but  of  conscience  and  of  duty  to 
God.  For  secular  purposes  let  a  government  de¬ 
mand  of  them  their  all,  if  need  be,  and  they  will 
give  their  all  if  not  freely  and  cheerfully  yet  with 
a  good  conscience ;  but  let  it  demand  one  dollar 
out  of  a  thousand  to  uphold  and  advance  a  religion 
which  they  in  their  hearts  hold  to  be  heretic,  and 
their  answer  must  be,  “  No,  we  will  obey  God  rather 
than  men!  ”  Since  God  commands  them  to  reject 
and  avoid  a  heretic,  how  can  they  with  a  good 
conscience  support  heresy  ?  Say  you  that  they 
may  be  mistaken  in  their  judgment  of  the  religion 
they  are  required  to  support,  we  answer  that  they 
must  heed  the  voice  of  conscience  all  the  same. 
Say  you  that  they  can  pay  it  “ under  protest” — be 
it  so ;  but  you  have  acknowledged  the  wrong  of 
the  action.  And  as  far  as  the  government  and  its 
churchly  ally  are  involved  in  the  affair,  every 
dollar  they  force  from  the  pocket  of  a  citizen  for 
religious  purposes  is  a  dollar  robbed. 

Nor  will  precedents  b{e  of  any  service  in  this 
case.  These  have  the  power  to  establish  authority 
of  action  at  the  best  only  in  matters  lying  beyond 
the  domain  of  morals;  they  have  not  the  power 
to  make  right  what  is  wrong.  None  but  a  prece¬ 
dent  founded  on  a  divine  command  can  decide 
to  be  right  what  to  us  would  seem  to  be  wrong. 
How  now  about  the  tithes  collected  under  the  Old 
Testament  dispensation — do  they  justify  a  compul¬ 
sion  of  payment  for  the  support  of  religion?  In 
regard  to  this  whole  business  of  tithing  the  follow¬ 
ing  facts  must  be  taken  into  consideration.  First: 


12. 


ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THEIR  UNION.  225 


in  the  apportionment  of  the  promised  land  the 
entire  tribe  of  Levi,  to  whom  the  ministry  of  the 
church  was  committed  and  for  whose  support  the 
tenth  wras  levied,  was  passed  by.  This  virtually 
created  a  church  investment  corresponding  to  any 
property  conveyed  by  private  individuals  to  the 
church  in  days  past  and  now  held  in  trust  for  such 
church  by  the  government  of  its  connection.  To 
the  profits  arising  from  such  investments  in  their 
behalf  the  Levites  therefore  had  a  right,  and  the 
whole  arrangement  simply  amounted  to  this  that 
the  remaining  tribes  tilled  the  land,  herded  the 
cattle  and  labored  for  the  tribe  of  Levi  in  part  while 
the  latter  ministered  for  them  in  holy  things — and 
that  we  call  an  equitable  arrangement.  Secondly  : 
whether  or  not  the  tithe-law  extended  over  the  Cuthaens 
or  Samaritans  and  heathens  dwelling  among  the  Is¬ 
raelites,  is  a  matter  of  dispute  among  the  Rabbi  to 
this  day.  Thirdly:  “The  payment  and  apprecia¬ 
tion  of  the  tithe,  Moses  left  to  the  consciences  of  the 
people  without  subjecting  them  to  judicial  or  sacerdotal 
visitations (See  Horne's  Introduction  III.  cap.  3, 
sect.  3). 

From  this  it  appears  that  tithing  among  the 
Hebrews,  originally  a  spontaneous  outgrowth  of  the 
religious  sentiment  and  subsequently  divinely  sanc¬ 
tioned  as  a  mode  of  providing  for  the  Church,  was 
in  its  nature  more  a  rule  than  a  law,  and  a  rule 
evangelical  in  its  character  since  its  observance  was 
left  to  the  consciences  of  the  people.  Of  this  evan¬ 
gelical  trait  not  a  stroke  can  be  found  in  the  taxa¬ 
tion  whereby  State-churches  are  supported;  this  is 
inexorably  legal  in  its  conception,  form  and  en- 


226  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


forcement;  and  while  it  prescribes  to  the  church¬ 
man,  it  oppresses  and  plunders  the  dissenter.  The 
whole  scheme  is  a  disgrace  to  the  State  and  the 
Church  who  join  hands  to  execute  it;  to  the  latter, 
because  it  is  to  subsist  on  the  free-will  offerings  of 
its  own  members  and  friends ;  to  the  former,  because 
it  is  appointed  to  protect  its  every  citizen  in  the 
free  exercise  of  his  religious  rights  and  duties.  If 
the  State  can  in  justice  force  its  subjects  to  pay  to¬ 
wards  the  support  of  what  is  to  them  a  false  relig¬ 
ion,  then  can  it  with  equal  justice  demand  of  them 
to  subscribe  and  confess  any  creed,  to  attend  any 
church,  to  commit  any  idolatry.  Then  is  religious 
liberty  a  meaningless  phrase  and  a  mockery.  Then 
did  they  deservedly  suffer  who  from  fear  of  God 
would  not  and  could  not  uncover  their  heads  before 
the  monstrance,  nor  prostrate  themselves  before  the 
monstrosity  of  papal  Rome.  Then  does  the  harlot 
glutted  with  the  blood  of  martyrs  stand  acquitted. 

But  no,  we  do  not  so  understand  the  will  of  God 
as  made  known  by  the  Word  or  by  nature.  By 
every  sense  of  right,  that  which  is  held  out  quite 
often  as  the  greatest  advantage  of  Church-stateism 
thus  turns  out  to  be  the  chief  objection.  But  what 
is  wrong  cannot  but  work  injuriously,  and  this 
leads  us  to  our 

Fifth  argument .  The  first,  direct  and  unavoid¬ 
able  result  of  their  union  is  that  it  produces  destruc¬ 
tive  elements  in  both,  the  State  and  the  Church. 
Happily  the  days  of  “  blue  blood  ”  and  of  privileged 
classes  belong  to  the  past.  If  there  are  still  found 
those  who  deem  themselves  a  special  order  of 
beings,  they  are  such  in  their  own  conceit  only. 


12. 


ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THEIR  UNION.  227 


The  people  generally  have  learned  to  perceive  dig¬ 
nity  in,  and  to  ascribe  honor  to,  none  but  persons  of 
worth  and  merit.  Consistently  with  the  Christian 
doctrine  of  the  common  brotherhood  of  man  and 
with  the  other  from  this  evolved,  that  of  equal 
rights,  men  assert  their  rights  and  rest  not  until 
they  see  them  respected.  When  therefore  govern¬ 
ments  arbitrarily  create  or  uphold  existing  distinc¬ 
tions  and  preferments  between  the  various  orders 
and  societies  into  which  the  citizens  are  divided, 
these  naturally  become  disaffected  and,  in  many 
cases,  not  without  good  reason.  If  churchmen  do 
not  knowr  or  will  not  acknowledge  the  fact  now 
wrell  established,  that  governments  have  no  business 
with  religion  farther  than  to  protect  it,  dissidents 
do  know  it  the  more  fully  and  they  will  publish  it 
the  more  loudly  and  effectually.  By  favoring  one 
religion,  a  State  necessarily  discriminates  against 
all  others;  by  establishing  one  denomination,  all 
others  are  aggrieved.  Establishments  inevitably 
cause  divisions  among  the  citizens;  they  create 
factions  in  the  body  politic  and  array  one  party 
against  the  other,  the  non-conforming  religionists 
stand  opposed  to  the  established  Church  and  the 
State.  Considering  that  -  this  can  gain  little  or 
nothing  by  meddling  with  the  religion  of  its  sub¬ 
jects;  yea,  that  it  has  no  call  whatever  to  do  so, 
what  inexcusable  blindness,  what  folly  it  is  thus  to 
alienate  from  itself  the  hearts  of  its  citizens.  Take 
England  for  an  example.  To  its  20,000,000  church¬ 
men — many  of  them  such  only  nominally — there 
are  from  8  to  10,000,000  non-conformists  ;  and  di¬ 
vided  as  these  last  are  among  themselves,  in  one 


228  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


thing  they  stand  agreed — as  one  mighty  body  they 
insist  upon  disestablishment.  Though  of  late  years 
nearly  all  political  disabilities  as  far  as  religion  is 
concerned  have  been  wisely  removed,  though  a  Jew 
can  be,  and  has  been,  prime  Minister,  though  every 
one  is  left  free  to  exercise  his  religion  as  best  he 
can,  notwithstanding  all  this  the  one  cause  of  dis¬ 
satisfaction — the  established  Church,  the  source  or 
occasion  of  so  many  wrongs  and  evils  in  days  past, 
but  by  no  means  forgotten — still  remains.  The 
government,  before  which  all  are  entitled  to  the 
same  recognition,  still  exercises  a  fostering  care 
over  the  one  Church  while  the  others,  as  so  many 
unwelcome  step-children  if  not  bastards,  are  left 
out  of  doors,  there  to  shift  for  themselves.  Than 
the  child  of  the  house  more  happy  and  prosperous 
perhaps  are  they  who,  from  love  of  independence 
and  of  what  they  believe  the  truth,  roam  abroad; 
but  this  can  in  no  way  excuse  the  unjust  and  un¬ 
necessary  discrimination  made  against  them. 

As  a  rule,  party-politics  is  something  foreign  to 
the  Gospel  ministry ;  not  so  however  when  they  in¬ 
volve  moral  and  religious  principles  and  therefore 
directly  affect  the  Church.  This  is  the  case  in 
the  question  of  establishment  or  disestablishment. 
With  regard  to  this  the  clergy  must  take  sides  and 
do  battle  either  for  or  against,  distasteful  as  it  may 
be  for  many  to  do  so.  Designing  politicians  will  at 
once  seek  to  draw  profit  from  this  condition  of 
affairs.  Doubtful  and  selfish  measures  of  all  sorts 
are  attached  to  the  momentous  question,  and  the 
success  of  this  is  bound  up  with  the  success  of  the 
former;  there  is  left  but  the  alternative — if  you 


12. 


ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THEIR  UNION.  229 


pluck  the  rose  you  must  take  the  thorn.  Thus, 
whether  they  will  or  not,  the  ministers  of  the 
Church  are  drawn  into  active  politics,  and  their 
pulpits  are  converted  into  a  rostrum  in  part  for  un¬ 
holy  purposes.  They  who  feel  aggrieved  on  account 
of  church-preferments  on  the  part  of  the  govern¬ 
ment  are  in  the  right,  and  the  cause  they  espouse 
adverse  to  them  is  surely  a  holy  one ;  but  that  in  so 
doing  they  will  always  keep  within  proper  bounds 
and  employ  none  but  legitimate  means  and  meth¬ 
ods  is  not  at  all  probable.  In  the  body  of  non-con- 
forming  churches  a  government  will  therefore  al¬ 
ways  have  an  element  more  or  less  estranged  from 
the  body  ruling — a  mighty  disintegrating  element. 

And  while  a  State  thus  alienates  the  hearts  of 
thousands  of  its  citizens  whose  religion  it  judges 
and  disapproves,  does  it  thereby  render  all  the 
more  loyal  perhaps  others  whose  religion  it  makes 
its  own  ?  That  might  be  expected ;  but  it  is  not 
always  the  case.  Within  established  churches  them¬ 
selves  there  are  many  who  discern  the  inexpediency 
of  their  churchly  relation  to  the  government ;  some 
perceive  the  injustice  done  unto  others  by  their  own 
preferment;  and  others  again  feel  that  in  affairs  re¬ 
ligious  to  be  bound  by  more  than  the  authority  of 
God’s  Word,  and  that  in  one’s  churchly  duties  to  be 
amenable  to  a  body  other  than  the  Church,  is  a 
condition  abnormal  for  many  reasons  and  under 
some  circumstances  quite  oppressive.  That  estab¬ 
lished  churches,  and  especially  its  members,  enjoy 
not  that  freedom  of  action  which  belongs  to  them 
of  right,  became  manifest  as  soon  as  Christianity  was 
first  made  a  national  religion.  In  proof  of  this  we 


230  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


need  but  refer  to  the  experiences  of  the  Athanasians, 
the  Arians,  and  the  Donatists  in  the  times  of  Con¬ 
stantine.  So  long  as  the  power  of  State  was  engaged 
in  his  own  behalf  and  against  Arius,  his  opponent, 
the  great  Athanasius,  could  approve  the  persecution 
of  heretics  by  the  secular  arm  ;  but  no  sooner  was  this 
directed  against  himself  and  the  faith  most  dear  to 
his  heart,  than  were  his  eyes  opened  to  the  evil,  and 
he  began  earnestly  to  contend  for  the  cause  of  re¬ 
ligious  liberty.  So  up  to  this  day,  it  has  been  the 
experience  of  thousands  upon  thousands  that  the 
little  good  resulting  from  an  establishment  of  relig¬ 
ion  is  paid  for  with  a  great  price  by  the  churches  of 
their  belonging,  and  in  consequence  these  feel  them¬ 
selves  under  no  obligation  to  the  government  for 
any  control  this  may  have  assumed  over  them  and 
their  religious  concerns.  Look  at  it  as  you  will, 
from  many  within  the  established  Church  and  from 
all  without  it,  a  government  can  expect  no  thanks 
for  meddling  with  religion.  Politically,  Establish¬ 
ments  are  based  on  anything  but  a  wise  and  sound 
policy ;  they  engender  dissatisfaction  and  strife 
among  the  citizens,  they  foster  a  revolutionary 
spirit,  and  they  react  injuriously  upon  the  State 
in  many,  many  ways. 

Meanwhile,  how  fares  the  Church  under  an 
establishment?  No  better,  if  not  by  far  worse, 
than  the  State.  “  Governments  have  it  not  in 
their  power  to  do  their  subjects  the  least  service  as 
to  their  religious  beliefs  and  mode  of  worship.  On 
the  contrary,  whenever  the  civil  magistrate  inter¬ 
poses  his  authority  in  matters  of  religion,  otherwise 
than  in  keeping  the  peace  amongst  all  religious 


§12. 


ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THEIR  UNION.  231 


parties,  you  may  trace  every  step  he  has  taken  by 
the  mischievous  effects  his  interposition  has  pro¬ 
duced.”  (j Burgh's  Pol .  Disquisition  III.,p.  202.)  And 
what  else  can  be  expected?  Unless  membership  in 
the  established  Church  be  made  a  condition  of 
holding  civil  office,  the  management  of  religious 
affairs  must  inevitably  fall  into  the  hands  also  of 
such  men  as  are  wholly  unfit  if  not  positively  in¬ 
disposed  to  do  the  Church  any  service.  Wherever 
the  ecclesiastical  is  mingled,  be  it  more  or  less, 
with  political  authority  there  the  danger  is  immi¬ 
nent  that  the  affairs  of  Church  be  made  subject  to 
the  jurisdiction  of  those  who  are  wholly  irreligious, 
or,  if  religious  yet  are  inimical  to  the  particular 
religion  established.  An  old  English  poet,  per¬ 
haps  Chaucer,  assures  his  fellow  Christians  that 

“  Christ  is  our  hede  that  sitteth  on  hie, 

Heddis  ne  ought  we  have  no  mo ; 

We  ben  His  membres  bothe  also, 

Father  He  taught  us  call  Him  all ; 

Maisters  to  call  forbad  He  tho : 

A1  maisters  be  wickid  and  fals.” 

Happily  she  is  not  “wickid  and  fals,”  but  the 
queen  of  England  is  the  “hede”  of  the  Anglican 
Church.  But  suppose  the  present  sovereign  were 
wicked  and  false, — as  kings  and  queens  have  often 
been, — by  the  present  relation  of  the  Anglican 
Church  to  the  throne,  he  or  she  would  be  the  head 
of  the  Church  all  the  same.  Under  such  circum¬ 
stances  who  can  tell  what  incalculable  injury  might 
be  done  to  religion?  Instructions  and  restrictions, 
where  the  ruling  power  is  bent  upon  doing  harm, 
are  but  a  poor  safe-guard.  Much  more  secure 


232  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


against  all  violence  is  religion  there  where  the 
officers  of  State,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest,  are 
forbidden  to  interfere  with  it,  and  have  no  other 
duty  than  that  of  protecting  its  free  exercise. 
Again,  if  a  church  is  bound  to  have  a  ruling  head 
at  all,  ’tis  best  to  appoint  thereto  such  persons  as 
have  no  political  power;  then  also,  to  appoint  and 
depose  them,  as  the  case  may  require,  wholly  inde¬ 
pendently  of  the  State. 

The  opinion  that  a  man  can  not  act  the  part 
of  a  loyal  citizen  unless  he  be  a  Christian,  and 
that  he  cannot  be  an  efficient  civil  officer  except 
he  be  a  member  of  Church,  is  in  our  day  enter¬ 
tained  by  very  few  people.  “Test  acts”  are  gener¬ 
ally  abolished.  Wherever  the  irreligious  and  the 
dissident  citizen  are  thus  no  longer  excluded  from 
holding  office,  there,  as  a  matter  of  course,  church¬ 
men  will  generally  put  forth  every  effort  to  keep 
them  out.  It  stands  to  reason  that  when  the 
officers  of  State  are  ex-officio  officers  of  the  Church, 
the  latter  body  will  do  all  it  can  to  have  only  such 
persons  elected  or  appointed  as  are  of  its  own  com¬ 
munion.  The  effect  of  such  a  condition  of  things 
is  almost  self-evidently  pernicious.  Many  unprin¬ 
cipled  men  will  enter  the  Church  for  no  other 
reason  than  that  of  political  advantages.  Do  men 
maintain  membership  in  churches  even  when  these 
are  separate  from  the  State  in  order  to  secure  their 
patronage  and  support  of  their  political  aspirations, 
how  much  more  must  this  be  the  case  when  the 
Church  is  a  part  of  the  State  and  as  such  takes  an 
active  part  in  politics.  And  surely  such  elements 
cannot  possibly  exercise  any  other  than  a  bane- 


§  12.  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THEIR  UNION.  233 


ful  influence  upon  religion  and  the  affairs  of  the 
Church  generally.  Wherever  the  latter  are  made 
to  serve  the  purpose  of  acquiring  and  strengthen¬ 
ing  personal  influence,  of  securing  positions  and 
honors,  etc.,  what  security  is  there  left  to  sound 
doctrine,  to  an  upright  faith,  and  to  proper  dis¬ 
cipline  ?  There  was  a  time  when  it  was  taken  for 
granted  that  members  of  churches  and  professors 
of  theology  wrere  Christians ;  but  hypocrites,  para¬ 
sites,  artful  politicians,  and  beings  of  such  sort, 
have  become  so  manifestly  plentiful  in  churches 
that  to  speak  of  a  believing  theologian,  for  example, 
is  considered  quite  proper  despite  the  fact  that,  if 
there  be  any  meaning  in  words,  an  “  unbelieving 
theologian”  is  a  thing  that  cannot  be  conceived. 
But,  especially  in  the  established  Church  of  Ger¬ 
many,  a  “theologian”  to-day  is  a  person  who  earns 
(?)  his  bread  and  butter  by  learned  disquisitions 
and  treatises  on  God  and  godly  things,  and  if  he 
believes  in  the  things  he  talks  about,  it  must  be 
specially  mentioned . 

“Not  the  less” — says  Geffken,  in  speaking  of 
the  first  union  of  the  Christian  Church  with  the 
State — “all  the  secular  advantages  with  which  the 
Church,  thus  far  persecuted  but  now  triumphant, 
was  thus  suddenly  overwhelmed  had  a  very  deleteri¬ 
ous  effect.  Multitudes  joined  the  Church  simply  to 
court  the  favor  of  the  emperor,  and  many  sought 
office  because  the  service  of  the  Church  was  made 
extraordinarily  lucrative.  On  account  of  vacant 
episcopates  the  most  vehement  contention  would 
arise  among  candidates ;  in  order  to  outstrip  their 
competitors  they  would  resort  to  flattery,  bribery, 
10* 


234  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


and  even  to  brutal  violence;  as  a  result,  these  high 
offices  not  unfrequently  fell  into  most  unworthy 
hands  ;  (Ad  miseros  homines ,  vernarum  vernas ,  devinit 
nunc  episcopatus  nomen — writes  Basilius),  and  these 
of  course  would  appoint  to  the  more  subordinate 
positions  men  of  their  own  evil  ilk,  so  that  while 
the  Church  gained  in  extent  and  power  externally, 
it  suffered  severe  loss  in  the  matter  of  inner  worth.” 
(K.  u.  St.  p.  88).  If  not  in  the  same  measure,  such 
has  been  the  fruit  of  its  union  with  the  State  at  all 
times.  When  favored  by  this,  a  church  is  sure  to 
become  more  or  less  a  prey  to  corrupting  elements 
on  that  very  account — secularization  is  the  price  it 
pays  for  its  political  advantages.  And  this,  no 
matter  what  the  form  of  government  may  be, 
whether  republican  or  monarchic.  Thus  the  Ber¬ 
nese  professor  of  theology,  Zyro ,  openly  charges 
that  government  that  it  has  secularized  and  almost 
destroyed  the  Church  ;  that  it  has  made  the  clergy 
to  be  the  servile  creatures  of  the  rich  and  power¬ 
ful.  (Comp.  Die  Ev.  Ref.  Kirche.  —  Bern-- 1837, 

p.  81). 

Sixth:  the  adverse  testimony  of  history.  Than  the 
evil  of  confounding  common  morality  with  Chris¬ 
tian  ethics,  of  mixing  politics  with  religion,  of 
connecting  State  and  Church,  there  is  none  which 
in  itself  seems  more  insignificant  but  which  in  its 
workings  has  proved  itself  more  disastrous  to  all 
the  interests  of  mankind.  That  it  is  an  evil  at  all, 
the  mass  of  mankind  has  been  astonishingly  slow 
to  learn ;  and  there  are  not  a  few  even  in  our  time 
who  as  yet  do  not  recognize  it  as  such.  But  now 
that  the  mistakes  of  the  past  are  before  us  and 


§12. 


ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THEIR  UNION.  235 


generally  seen  in  their  true  light,  and  looking  back 
upon  the  long  and  wearisome  days  of  instruction 
and  discipline,  how  inexpressibly  cruel  has  been 
the  mode  of  teaching  and  how  enormously  great 
the  price  of  learning ! 

Clearly  distinguishing  between  the  things  be¬ 
longing  to  Caesar  and  those  belonging  to  God,  the 
good  and  wise  Master  bade  all  to  render  to  each 
his  due.  .  And  for  centuries  His  own  obeyed  the 
precept.  Not  so  the  pagans.  These,  rejecting  the 
knowledge  of  the  true  God  proclaimed  to  them  and 
thus  refusing  to  render  unto  God  the  things  that 
are  God’s,  sought  to  prevent  His  own  people  from 
doing  so  also  and  required  of  them  to  do  homage 
unto  the  national  gods.  And  paganism  ruled  the 
world.  Pontifex  maximus  of  its  religions  no  less 
than  sovereign  in  affairs  of  State,  emperor  followed 
emperor  in  directing  every  power  at  his  command 
against  the  Christ  of  God  and  all  who  dared  to 
name  Him  Lord.  Then  Christians,  more  than  can 
be  numbered,  rather  than  deny  their  faith,  sealed 
it  with  their  blood.  The  honor  to  die  for  the  Lord 
and  His  cause  some  coveted,  others  accepted,  while 
suckling  babes  were  not  spared. 

“  One  presses  on,  and  welcomes  death : 

One  calmly  yields  his  willing  breath, 

Nor  slow,  nor  hurrying,  but  in  faith 
Content  to  die  or  live : 

And  some,  the  darlings  of  the  Lord, 

Play  smiling  with  the  flame  and  sword, 

And,  ere  they  speak,  to  His  sure  word 
Unconscious  witness  give.”  * 


*  Rev.  Jno.  Keble  in  uThe  Ch.  Year 


236  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


Alas,  that  the  Christian  Church  of  those  days, 
and  later,  profited  not  by  its  own  most  bitter  ex¬ 
perience — that  Christians  ever  forgot  the  precept 
of  their  Master!  There  were  then,  and  there  have 
been  at  all  times,  those  who  did  not  forget,  who 
closely  distinguished  between  the  provinces  of  po¬ 
litics  and  religion,  who  deprecated  all  interference 
of  the  one  with  the  other,  and  who  condemned  per¬ 
secution.  But  their  voices  were  raised  in  vain. 
No  sooner  did  the  opportunity  offer  than,  0  day  of 
evil!  the  Christian  religion  itself  was  made  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  politics,  and  politics  a  matter  of  religion — 
than  the  Christian  Church  gave  itself  to  the  State 
and  the  State  to  the  Church.  Whether  for  better 
or  worse,  history  must  tell. 

During  the  past  centuries  the  power  of  the 
State  had  been  employed  against  the  Church  ; 
now  with  the  time  of  their  courtship  and  marriage 
came  also  the  day  of  retaliation.  Had  the  sover¬ 
eigns  of  this  world  thus  far  repressed  the  Christian 
religion  in  deference  to  paganism,  now  began  they 
the  work  of  exterminating  the  heathen  supersti¬ 
tions  in  deference  to  Christianity.  But  the  means 
and  methods  adopted  for  its  doing  were  little  better 
than  those  before  employed  against  the  very  religion 
they  now  sought  to  propagate.  Following  his  vic¬ 
tory  over  Maxentius,  a  political  rival  and  a  vehe¬ 
ment  defender  of  official  heathenism,  and  ascribing 
his  success  to  the  God  of  the  Christians,  Constantine 
at  once  enlarged  the  Galerian  edict  of  toleration 
and  proclaimed  religious  liberty  throughout  his  do¬ 
main.  Howbeit,  although  such  great  men  as  Ter - 
tullian  and  Origen  ardently  defended  the  justice 


ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THEIR  UNION.  237 


and  wisdom  of  the  noble  principle,  the  spirit  of 
the  time  was  not  prepared  to  adopt  it  and  grve  it 
course.  The  all-absorbing  question  which  then 
agitated  the  minds  of  men  concerned  the  power  of 
State,  paganism  struggling  with  might  and  main 
to  retain  its  hold  and  Christianity  being  deter¬ 
mined  to  seize  it.  The  latter  obtained  complete 
dominion  :  and  thus  for  the  first  time  in  their  his¬ 
tory  was  the  marriage  of  State  and  Church  effected 
— a  relation  which  has  continued  with  little  inter¬ 
ruption,  but  with  ever  varying  phases  and  for¬ 
tunes,  up  to  our  own  time.  And  what  has  been 
the  fruit  ?  Certainly,  the  little  good  wThich  has 
come  of  it  might  have  been  achieved  without  it, 
and  much  more  too,  and  all  in  a  manner  legiti¬ 
mate;  but  the  amount  of  evils  and  wrong-doing  of 
which  it  has  been  the  cause  or  occasion,  direct  or 
indirect,  is  simply  incalculable.  The  very  thought 
of  the  deeds  perpetrated  in  the  name  of  justice  and 
holy  religion,  and  committed  for  their  apparent 
benefit,  is  sufficient  to  rend  the  human  heart  with 
feelings  of  shame  and  indignation.  Much  has  been 
said,  and  something  can  be  said,  in  palliation  of 
the  mistakes  then  made  and  of  the  atrocities  com¬ 
mitted:  it  has  been  maintained  that  the  accounts 
given  of  them  are  exaggerating ;  and  that  this  be 
so,  must  be  the  fond  hope  of  every  one  humane  of 
heart.  But  the  facts,  as  far  as  they  are  known  with 
certainty,  alone  are  more  than  enough  to  show 
whither  men  will  drift  and  what  men  will  do  as 
soon  as  they  follow  their  own  counsel  rather  than 
the  wisdom  of  God. 

By  its  victory  over  heathenism  and  its  exalta- 


238  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION*  IV. 


tion,  if  such  it  can  be  called,  to  the  dignity  of  a 
national  religion,  Christianity  had  indeed  subdued 
but  by  no  means  as  yet  destroyed  its  old  and  bitter 
foe.  The  struggle  was  as  yet  not  ended.  Besides, 
by  its  very  deliverance  from  this  its  old  thralldom 
it  was  imperceptibly  subjected  to  another  and  new 
condition  of  servitude,  and  it  is  not  difficult  to  say 
which  of  the  two  in  the  end  proved  to  be  the 
worse.  The  Church,  like  a  persecuted  slave,  first 
set  free  and  then  wedded  to  a  self-willed  lord,  was 
delivered  from  the  heavy  hands  of  an  imperial 
pontifex  maximus  only  to  be  placed  into  the  strong 
hands  of  an  imperial  summus  episcopus — there  to 
remain  for  many  long  and  weary  days.  Its  new 
lord  and  lords,  while  they  slowly  and  surely  as¬ 
sumed  control  of  the  Church,  first  tolerated  but 
soon  took  it  upon  themselves  wholly  to  drive  out 
and  destroy  such  of  its  enemies  as  were  left.  By 
imperial  decree  the  temples  of  the  gods  were  plun¬ 
dered  and  closed,  destroyed,  or  reopened  for  Chris¬ 
tian  worship,  pagan  sacrifices  were  forbidden  under 
penalty  of  death,  the  property  of  the  disobedient 
was  confiscated  while  they  themselves  were  sent 
into  banishment,  apostasy  and  return  to  the  old 
superstition  were  branded  officially  as  crimes  and 
high  treason,  a  premium  was  put  upon  connection 
with  the  Church,  and  many  civil  advantages  were 
connected  with  offices  ecclesiastic.  Too  well  did 
the  husband  protect  the  newly  acquired  wife,  lav¬ 
ishly  did  he  provide  for  her  wants,  and  zealously 
did  he  indulge  her  reasonable  desires  and  her 
whims  as  well — so  great  was  the  ardor  of  first  love. 

Notwithstanding  this,  their  union  cannot  be 


5  12.  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THEIR  UNION.  239 


pronounced  a  happy  affair.  Did  the  Church  enjoy 
protection  and  peace,  was  she  enriched  unto  afflu¬ 
ence  with  the  things  of  this  world,  was  she  per¬ 
mitted  to  bask  in  favors  greater  than  might  be 
justly  expected,  let  us  not  for  a  moment  forget  the 
price  she  paid:  that  she  suffered  in  purity  of  char¬ 
acter  and  honor,  and  that  she  lost  her  liberty.  • 
Even  the  otherwise  halcyon  days  of  the  honey¬ 
moon  passed  by  not  without  a  storm.  The  be¬ 
havior  of  Julian  the  Apostate  was  wrell  calculated  to 
create  doubt  concerning  the  wisdom  of  the  choice 
made  and  the  union  entered.  But  again  the  lesson 
wras  not  heeded — whether  for  better  or  worse,  the 
wife  clung  to  her  husband.  As  already  Constan- 
.  tine  had  considered  himself  the  summus  episcopus 
of  the  Church,  no  less  did  his  successors.  These 
exercised  the  jus  circa  sacra  as  their  indisputable 
right.  No  ecumenical  synod  could  be  convened  ex¬ 
cept  by  imperial  decree;  and  wfflether  the  Church 
was  pleased  to  have  it  so  or  not,  his  sovereign  ma¬ 
jesty  would  take  a  leading  and  decisive  part  in  its 
affairs.  Already  in  A.  D.  476  Basiliscus ,  the  Usur¬ 
per ,  simply  prescribed  which  religion  was  to  be 
believed  and  taught  throughout  his  realm  and 
wThich  not. 

From  the  time  on  when  it  was  coupled  with 
the  Church  and  throughout  all  the  years  of  their 
connection  was  the  power  of  the  State  employed 
not  only  against  infidelity  and  superstition  as 
found  without  the  Church,  but  likewise  against  all 
heterodoxy  as  arising  within  it;  or  we  might  just 
as  well  say,  against  orthodoxy,  for  this  was  not 
seldom  mistaken  for  its  opposite.  Thus  it  came  to 


240  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


m 

pass  that  within  the  lapse  of  forty  years  Athana¬ 
sius,  whom  posterity  has  styled  pater  orthodoxiae  par 
excellence,  was  banished  no  less  than  four  times 
and  as  often  returned.  Twenty  years  of  the  forty-  . 
five  of  his  episcopate  were  spent  in  exile,  and  for 
no  other  reason  than  that  he  contended  for  the 
faith  of  Christendom.  Did  Church  and  State  thus 
deal  with  bishops,  their  treatment  of  more  ordi¬ 
nary  men,  who  dared  to  differ  from  them  in  mat¬ 
ters  pertaining  to  God  and  the  soul,  can  readily  be 
imagined. 

Meanwhile,  as  the  wife  sometimes  obtains  the 
mastery  over  the  husband,  so  here.  At  first  their 
relation  assumed  the  character  of  a  Caesario-papia , 
then  followed  the  Papo-caesaria.  First  the  State 
presumed  to  dictate  to  the  Church ;  but  gradually 
the  latter  asserted  its  rights  not  only  but  it  began 
to  dictate  to  the  State.  In  the  East,  to  be  sure,  the 
sovereign  lords  of  State  generally  maintained  their 
dignity,  that  is,  they  continued  to  toy  with  the 
Church  pretty  much  as  they  pleased;  and  a  lucra¬ 
tive  employment  they  found  it  to  be,  goodly  sums 
being  paid  them  quite  frequently  for  the  office  of  a 
bishop,  and  for  like  favors.  But  in  the  West,  af¬ 
fairs  assumed  an  entirely  different  phase.  Here, 
slowly  and  wearily  but  steadily  and  surely,  the 
papal  hierarchy  established  itself — that  monster 
prolific  of  a  thousand  woes  to  the  States  and 
Churches  of  the  world,  even  to  this  day.  Alas, 
how  the  once  pure  and  lovely  bride  had  degenera¬ 
ted  !  Espoused  to  one  husband  after  another,  and 
these  devoted  to  politics,  to  intrigue,  and  to  the 
waging  of  wars,  why  marvel  that  she  herself  forgot 


12. 


ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THEIR  UNION.  241 


both  her  station  and  mission,  that  her  virgin  graces 
and  peaceful  habits  gave  place  to  Amazonian  pas¬ 
sions  and  outrageous  excesses.  Then  was  the  Word 
of  God  bound,  lest  the  people  should  be  undeceived ; 
and  in  its  stead  was  set  up  the  ignis  fatuus  of  un¬ 
certain  tradition.  The  entire  fabric  of  the  Church 
was  gradually  reconstructed  from  top  to  bottom. 
Even  the  Old  Foundation,  elect  and  precious,  was 
rejected.  Yet  not  altogether  rejected.  In  view  of 
past  service  and  of  probable  present  usefulness,  the 
venerable  Corner-stone  was  not  wholly  left  out  of 
the  new  structure :  fitted  and  framed  anew,  it  was 
fixed  in  a  place,  high  and  dry  like  a  trader’s  sign, 
and  for  no  better  purpose.  Already  Tertullian  had 
placed  in  co-ordination  with  the  Biblical  antithesis 
of  Adam  and  Christ ,  one  of  his  own  imagination, 
namely  that  of  Eve  and  Mary .  That  was  in  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  the  third  century.  A  century  later, 
Cyrill  of  Alexandria ,  in  a  sermon  preached  at  Ephe¬ 
sus ,  exclaims:  “All  hail,  Mary!  ...  by  whom  the 
heavens  are  triumphant,  the  devils  are  cast  out,  the 
tempter  is  conquered,  and  a  fallen  race  is  lifted  up 
to  heaven.”  Similarly  the  Presbyter  Proclus  de¬ 
clared  Mary  to  be  “the  only  bridge  for  God  unto 
men.”  In  consequence  of  such  preaching,  which 
became  common  and  has  continued  up  to  our  own 
time,  there  could  be  little  or  no  room  for  Christ  in 
the  Church  :  at  least  no  longer  as  its  foundation  nor 
as  its  head.  As  the  one  He  was  displaced  for  Mary, 
the  Theotokos ;  as  the  other  He  was  removed  by  the 
pope  and  for  himself. 

We  do  not  claim  that  this  corruption  was  a 

direct  outgrowth  of  the  Church’s  union  with  the 

11 


242  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


State ;  we  call  attention  to  it  to  explain  how  some 
of  the  results  of  that  union  were  rendered  possible 
in  the  Church.  A  church,  or  ohurchdom  rather, 
next  to  Christless  is  capable  of  anything,  of  any 
enormity.  Such  a  departure  from  the  truth  ex¬ 
plains  how  the  churchdom  of  Rome  could  resort — 
and  would  resort  to-day  had  it  the  power — to  such 
a  device  and  instrument  of  hell  as  was  the  Inqui¬ 
sition — Rome’s  substitute  for  the  sword  of  the 
Spirit.  Thanks  to  the  support  of  vassaled  States 
to  the  right  and  to  the  left  of  it,  the  papal  hier¬ 
archy  sent  its  inquisitorial  hordes  throughout  all 
lands  in  search  of  heathens  and  heretics,  and  right 
lustily  did  these  ministers  of  wickedness  discharge 
their  nefarious  task. 

The  first  to  pass  the  sentence  of  death  upon 
heretics  was  the  Emperor  Theodosius,  despite  the 
opposition  of  Jerome,  of  Augustine,  and  others. 
Leo  the  Great  already  approved  of  such  bloody 
executions,  but  by  the  State  in  order  that  the 
Church — 0  logic  of  holy  innocence! — might  be  pre¬ 
served  from  blood-guiltiness.  But  this  spark  of 
seeming  conscientiousness  even  was  soon  extin¬ 
guished.  Then  hands  “holy  ”  vied  with  hands  pro¬ 
fane  in  prosecuting  the  bloody  work.  Suspicion  of 
heresy  real  and  imaginary,  and  accusation  no  mat¬ 
ter  by  whom  made,  convicts  not  excluded,  were 
pronounced  equivalent  to  conviction.  A  special 
object  were  the  high  and  rich,  though  the  low  and 
poor  were  not  spared.  Such  victims  as  lost  but 
their  position  and  property,  as  were  deprived  of 
their  political  rights  and  sent  into  exile,  had  every 
reason  to  account  themselves  fortunate:  the  greater 


§12. 


ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THEIR  UNION.  243 


number  by  far  were  subjected  to  the  excruciating 
tortures  of  the  rack  and  a  slow  death.  To  the  sick, 
when  suspected  of  heresy,  was  denied  the  attention 
of  a  physician.  Even  the  dead,  when  denounced, 
escaped  not — their  bodies  were  exhumed  and  burnt 
and  their  ashes  were 

“  Flung  to  the  heedless  winds 
Or  on  the  waters  cast  .  .  . 

•  ••«•• 

Yet  vain  is  Satan’s  boast 
Of  victory  in  their  death : 

Still,  still,  though  dead  they  speak, 

And,  triumph-tongued,  proclaim 
To  many  a  wak’ning  land 
The  one  availing  Name.”* 

Informers  were  highly  remunerated,  while  it 

was  made  the  business  of  everv  local  and  civil  of- 

%/ 

fice-holder  to  render  every  possible  assistance;  and 
he  who  was  found  slow  to  do  this  bidding,  was  forth¬ 
with  deprived  of  property  and  position. 

“Already  in  the  11.  and  12.  centuries  the 
1  Church’  resorted  to  the  dread  power  of  the  pyre, 
(as  a  kind  of  prelude  to  the  fires  of  hell  to  which 
heretics  are  assigned),  and  to  this  there  was  then 
heard  but  one  opposing  voice,  that  of  bishop  Wazo, 
of  Leige  (f  1040) ;  though  in  the  12.  century  there 
were  others  protesting  against  it,  such  as  Peter  the 
Venerable ,  St.  Hildegard ,  St.  Bernhard etc.  ( Kurtz 
Kirch.  Gesch .  §  109).  The  inquisition,  officially  es¬ 
tablished  by  pope  Gregory  IX.,  was  by  him  placed 
into  the  hands  of  the  Dominicans  or  dogs  of  the 
Lord,  as  they  delighted  to  call  themselves.  From 


*  Luther. 


244  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


that  time  on  the  work  of  fire  and  blood  was  carried 
on  methodically;  “Church”  and  “ State”  walking 
hand  in  hand  to  prosecute  it.  Hardly  a  country 
was  spared.  Through  Germany  and  Austria,  Ara¬ 
gon  and  Castile,  Lombardy  and  the  South  of  France, 
through  Italy,  Venice,  Naples,  Sicily,  Tuscany, 
Poland,  the  Netherlands  and  Portugal,  lastly  with 
the  Spanish  into  the  newly  discovered  America — 
went  the  bigoted,  covetous,  grasping  and  blood¬ 
thirsty  fiends  of  darkness.  And  England  ?  —  at¬ 
tended  to  the  same  work,  but  on  her  own  account; 
and  right  thoroughly  too  wras  it  there  performed. 
History  records  that  in  Spain  alone  32,000  victims 
were  burnt  alive  and  18,000  in  effigy,  which  latter 
was  accompanied  by  sequestration  of  all  property 
and  signified  the  deepest  degradation ;  besides,  300,- 
000  were  otherwise  punished.  “  The  number  of 
Netherlanders  burned,  strangled,  beheaded,  or  bur¬ 
ied  alive  .  .  .  has  been  placed  as  high  as  100,000  by 
distinguished  authorities,  and  has  never  been  put 
at  a  lower  mark  than  50,000.”  ( Motley .  Rise  Dutch 

Rep.  i.  114).  How  many  poor  wretches,  and  among 
these  some  of  the  best  minds  and  most  noble  souls 
of  their  day,  really  fell  a  prey  to  the  scourge  as  it 
passed  to  and  fro  throughout  all  lands,  no  tongue 
can  tell — God  knows,  and  he  will  avenge  !  But,  in 
the  language  of  Hr.  Krauth ,  “  The  world  over,  the 
Inquisition,  in  both  its  forms  ”  (i.  e.  as  an  ecclesi¬ 
astical  and  an  ecclesiastico-political  tribunal),  “has 
fallen”  ....  and  “the  Jew  lives,  Protestantism 
lives,  free  government  lives,  but  the  system  center¬ 
ing  in  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  robbing  of  life  all 
to  which  it  clung,  lies,  a  withered  parasite,  on  the 
tree  it  exhausted.”  ( Johnson’s  Cyc .  IL  p.  1215). 


12. 


ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THEIR  UNION.  245 


Now  while  they  thus  summarily  dealt  with 
their  “wayward  children”  and  with  troublesome 
“bastards,”  how  fared  husband  and  wife  with  re¬ 
spect  to  their  own  personal  relations?  From  the 
way  they  blundered  and  blustered  about  among 
the  inmates  of  the  house  and  of  their  neigh¬ 
bors’  houses,  it  can  hardly  be  expected  that  between 
themselves  they  should  fare  in  a  way  altogether 
peaceful  and  happy.  Nor  does  our  conjecture  de¬ 
ceive  us  on  that  point.  United  as  they  generally 
were  against  anything  which  prejudiced  and  in¬ 
jured  the  interests  either  of  the  one  or  the  other — 
be  it  in  reality  or  imagination — between  themselves 
they  were  as  often  divided;  ay!  and  what  would 
least  become  a  holy  loving  couple,  as  they  pretended 
to  be,  not  seldom  it  came  to  blows  between  them ; 
when,  at  one  time  the  husband  would  be  worsted, 
at  another,  the  wife.  We  here  bethink  us,  by  way 
of  example,  of  the  Latrocinium  Ephesium  in  A.  D 
449;  then  of  that  unpleasantness  between  the  Em¬ 
peror  Leo  III.  and  the  popes  Gregory  the  Second 
and  Third,  from  A.  D.  717  to  741;  and,  in  fact,  of 
the  whole  iconoclastic  conflict;  farther,  of  the  long 
and  disgraceful  struggle  for  supremacy  between  the 
popes  and  the  Carlovingians,  and  of  many  more 
such  family  scenes.  In  truth,  they  were  never 
wholly  content  and  fully  at  peace  with  each  other. 
At  one  time  the  Church  would  rob  the  State,  at 
another,  the  State  robbed  the  Church.  Popes  would 
enthrone  and  dethrone  kings  and  emperors  as  they 
listed,  whenever  they  had  the  upper  hand ;  at  other 
times  again  kings  and  emperors  created  or  destroyed 
bishops  and  popes  to  suit  none  but  themselves.  In 


246  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


short,  a  more  unhappy  family  there  never  was  in 
all  the  world,  and  none  perhaps  more  wicked. 

No  doubt,  the  objection  made  to  this  argument 
will  be  that  the  wrongs  and  evils  pointed  out  are 
accidental  and  not  essentially  characteristic  of  a 
union  between  the  State  and  the  Church ;  then,  too, 
that  these  things  occurred  mostly  in  the  benighted 
Church  of  Rome  and  the  dynasties  of  the  dark 
ages;  that  therefore  the  testimony  of  history  is  not 
applicable  to  Establishments  generally,  especially 
not  to  those  of  a  Protestant  character.  We  answer : 
true  Protestantism  is  in  very  principle  opposed  to 
every  union  of  Church  and  State ;  whatever  in  our 
day  is  pleased  to  call  itself  Protestantism  may  not 
be  a  whit  better  than  Romanism  itself,  for  there  are 
very  many  who  mistake  a  mere  blind  opposition  to 
the  Church  of  Rome  for  Protestantism.  In  the 
second  place,  we  reply  :  the  history  of  Protestant 
Church-States,  though  not  written  with  blood  as 
that  of  the  papal  hierarchy,  is  by  no  means  pleas¬ 
ant  reading.  No,  it  tells  of  many  things  which  are 
better  not  named ;  and  we  venture  the  assertion 
that  no  intelligent  friend  of  religious  establish¬ 
ments  will  in  support  of  them  point  to  the  records 
of  the  past.  If  ever  any  be  held  up  as  a  model 
State  and  a  model  church  and  a  model  union  of 
such  model  parties,  these  are  the  united  State  and 
Church  of  England  :  be  it  so.  We  here  append  the 
testimony  of  one  who  seems  to  have  been  there  and 
knows  whereof  he  affirms.  Though  somewhat  rhet¬ 
orical  perhaps,  His  worth  a  careful  inspection. 

Hon .  jB.  W.  Noel ,  brother  of  the  first  earl  of 
Gainsborough,  and  at  one  time  a  chaplain  to 


12. 


ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THEIR  UNION.  247 


the  Queen,  in  summing  up  his  arguments  against 
the  Auglican  Establishment,  says:  “All  the  main 
principles  upon  which  it  rests,  are  unsound.  Its 
State-salaries,  its  supremacy,  its  patronage,  its  com¬ 
pulsion*  of  payments  for  the  support  of  religion, 
are  condemned  by  both  the  precedents  and  pre¬ 
cepts  of  the  Word  of  God.  We  have  seen  that  it 
sheds  a  blighting  influence  upon  prelates,  incum¬ 
bents,  curates,  and  other  members  of  churches.  It 
adds  little  to  the  number  of  pastors,  it  distributes 
them  with  a  wasteful  disregard  to  the  wants  of  the 
population,  and  it  pays  least  those  whom  it  ought 
to  pay  most  liberally.  It  excludes  the  Gospel  from 
thousands  of  parishes ;  it  perpetuates  corruptions 
in  doctrine;  it  hinders  all  scriptural  discipline ;  it 
desecrates  the  ordinances  of  Christ,  confounds  the 
Church  and  the  world,  ferments  schism  among 
Christians,  and  tempts  the  ministers  of  Christ  both 
in  and  out  of  the  Establishment  to  be  eager  poli¬ 
ticians.  Further,  it  embarrasses  successive  govern¬ 
ments,  maintains  one  chief  element  of  revolution 
in  the  country,  renders  the  reformation  of  the  An¬ 
glican  Church  hopeless,  hinders  the  progress  of  the 
Gospel  throughout  the  kingdom,  and  strengthens 
all  the  corrupt  papal  Establishments  of  Europe.” 
(  Union  of  Ch.  &  St.  p.  440.  See  also  Bohlen  Lect.  of 
1882,  p.  82,  etc.) 

We  have  thus,  as  it  were,  no  more  than  peeped 
through  between  the  shutter-slats  of  the  domiciles 
wherein  churches  and  states  have  housed  together, 
and  the  scenes  beheld  are  most  forbidding.  The 


*  This  work  was  written  before  this  wrong  was  abolished. 


248  THEIR  HUMANLY  ORDERED  RELATION.  IV. 


little  we  have  seen  is  enough  to  convince  us  that 
there  are  dangers,  evils,  wrongs  and  horrors  attend¬ 
ing  all  these  unions  such  that  we  have  no  desire  to 
enter  and  see  more.  And  whether  accidental  or 
essentially  characteristic,  these  deterring  results  are 
always  there  to  an  extent  greater  or  less.  On  the 
other  hand,  such  unions  are  not  divinely  required 
but  are  morally  doubtful  even  in  their  very  princi¬ 
ple;  every  good  they  can  possibly  and  properly  ac¬ 
complish,  can  be  otherwise  achieved  and  just  as 
well ;  there  is  no  necessity  for  them  whatever. 
Common  sense,  justice,  equity,  the  well-being  of 
Church  and  State,  the  testimony  of  history — all 
combine  in  evidence  adverse:  the  verdict  is  that 
Ralph  and  Rachel  must  not  be  married  under  any 
circumstances  and  on  no  conditions  whatever. 


§13. 


ITS  CONSTITUTIONS. 


249 


V.  THE  RELATION  OF  THE  STATE  AND  THE 
CHURCH  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


13.  OFFICIAL  UTTERANCES  IN  THE  CON¬ 
STITUTIONS. 


On  account  of  the  interest  of  which  they  may 
be  to  some,  of  the  intrinsic  value  they  have,  and 
for  convenient  reference,  we  here  give  the  expres¬ 
sions  on  the  subject  as  embodied  in  the  Constitu¬ 
tions  respectively  of  the  Nation  and  its  several 
States.  The  numbers  following  the  names  indi¬ 
cate  the  years  in  which  the  Constitutions  were 
adopted. 

United  States — 1789  —  Form  of  oath  prescribed 
for  the  inauguration  of  the  chief  executive  :  “  I  do 
solemnly  swear  (or  affirm)  that  I  will  faithfully  exe¬ 
cute  the  Office  of  President  of  the  United  States, 
and  will  to  the  best  of  my  ability,  preserve,  pro¬ 
tect  and  defend  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.”  Art.  II.  Sec.  1. 

“  The  Senators  and  Representatives  .  .  .  and  all 
executive  and  judicial  officers,  both  of  the  United 
States  and  of  the  several  States,  shall  be  bound  by 
Oath  or  Affirmation,  to  support  this  Constitution; 
but  no  religious  Test  shall  ever  be  required  as  a 
qualification  to  any  Office  or  public  Trust  under 
the  United  States.”  Art.  VI.  (§  3). 

“  Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  es- 


250 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


y. 


tablishment  of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the  free  ex¬ 
ercise  thereof;  or  abridging  the  freedom  of  speech, 
or  of  the  press;  or  the  right  of  the  people  peaceably 
to  assemble,  and  to  petition  the  Government  for  a 
redress  of  grievances.”  Amend.  Art.  1. 


Alabama — 1875 — declares:  “That  no  religion  shall  be 
established  by  law ;  that  no  preference  shall  be  given  by 
law  to  any  religious  sect,  society,  denomination,  or  mode  of 
worship ;  that  no  one  shall  be  compelled  by  law  to  attend 
any  place  of  worship,  nor  to  pay  any  tithes,  taxes  or  other 
rate,  for  building  or  repairing  any  place  of  worship,  or  for 
maintaining  any  minister  or  ministry  ;  that  no  religious  test 
shall  be  required  as  a  qualification  to  any  office  or  public 
trust  under  this  State ;  and  that  the  civil  rights,  privileges, 
and  capacities  of  any  citizen  shall  not  be  in  any  manner 
affected  by  his  religious  principles.”  Art  I.  Sec.  4. 


Arkansas — 1874 — “All  men  have  a  natural  and  indefeas¬ 
ible  right  to  worship  Almighty  God  according  to  the  dictates 
of  their  own  consciences ;  no  man  can  of  right  be  compelled 
to  attend,  erect  or  support  any  place  of  worship,  or  to  main¬ 
tain  any  ministry  against  his  consent.  No  human  authority 
can,  in  any  case  or  manner  whatsoever,  control  or  interfere 
with  the  right  of  conscience ;  and  no  preference  shall  ever 
be  given  by  law  to  any  religious  establishment,  denomina¬ 
tion,  or  mode  of  worship  above  any  other.”  Art.  II.  Sec.  24. 

“  Religion,  morality,  and  knowledge  being  essential  to 
good  government,  the  general  assembly  shall  enact  suitable 
laws  to  protect  every  religious  denomination  in  the  peace¬ 
able  enjoyment  of  its  own  mode  of  public  worship.”  ib. 
sec.  25. 

“  No  religious  test  shall  ever  be  required  of  any  person 
as  a  qualification  to  vote  or  hold  office ;  nor  shall  any  person 
be  rendered  incompetent  to  be  a  witness  on  account  of  his 
religious  belief;  but  nothing  herein  shall  be  construed  to 
dispense  with  oaths  or  affirmations.”  ib.  sec.  26. 

“No  person  who  denies  the  being  of  a  God  shall  hold 
any  office  in  the  civil  departments  of  this  State,  nor  be  com¬ 
petent  to  testify  as  a  witness  in  any  court.”  Art.  XIX. 
sec.  1.* 


*  “Is  still  in  force.  No  question  has  been  raised  in  case  of  holding 
office,  hut  in  the  courts  the  g  is  fully  enforced  against  witnesses  denying 
the  existence  of  a  God,  and  witnesses  are  often  challenged  for  that 
cause.”  Jacob  Frolich,  Sec.  St. 


13. 


ITS  CONSTITUTIONS. 


251 


California — 1849 — “  The  free  exercise  and  enjoyment  of 
religious  profession  and  worship,  without  discrimination  or 
preference,  shall  forever  be  allowed  in  this  State ;  and  no 
person  shall  be  rendered  incompetent  to  be  a  witness  on  ac¬ 
count  of  his  opinions  on  matters  of  religious  belief;  but  the 
liberty  of  conscience  hereby  secured  shall  not  be  so  con¬ 
strued  as  to  excuse  acts  of  licentiousness,  or  justify  practices 
inconsistent  with  the  peace  or  safety  of  the  State.”  Art  I. 
sec.  4. 


Colorado — 1876 — declares:  “That  the  free  exercise  and 
enjoyment  of  religious  profession  and  worship,  without  dis¬ 
crimination,  shall  forever  hereafter  be  guaranteed ;  and  no 
person  shall  be  denied  any  civil  or  political  right,  privilege, 
or  capacity  on  account  of  his  opinions  concerning  religion ; 
but  the  liberty  of  conscience  hereby  secured  shall  not  be 
construed  to  dispense  with  oaths  or  affirmations,  excuse  acts 
of  licentiousness,  or  justify  practices  inconsistent  with  the 
good  order,  peace,  or  safety  of  the  State.  No  person  shall 
be  required  to  attend  or  support  any  ministry  or  place  of 
worship,  religious  sect  or  denomination  against  his  consent ; 
nor  shall  any  preference  be  given  by  law  to  any  religious 
denomination  or  mode  of  worship.”  Art.  II.  sec.  4. 


Connecticut — 1818 — “  The  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  re¬ 
ligious  profession  and  worship,  without  discrimination,  shall 
forever  be  free  to  all  persons  in  this  State,  provided  that  the 
right  hereby  declared  and  established  shall  not  be  so  con¬ 
strued  as  to  excuse  acts  of  licentiousness,  or  to  justify  prac¬ 
tices  inconsistent  with  the  peace  and  safety  of  the  State.” 
Art.  I.  sec.  3. 

“No  preference  shall  be  given  by  law  to  any  Christian 
sect  or  mode  of  worship.”  ib.  sec  4. 

“It  being  the  duty  of  all  men  to  worship  the  Supreme 
Being,  the  great  Creator  and  Preserver  of  the  Universe,  and 
their  right  to  render  that  worship  in  the  mode  most  consist¬ 
ent  with  the  dictates  of  their  consciences,  no  person  shall  by 
law  be  compelled  to  join  or  support,  nor  be  classed  with,  or 
associated  to,  any  congregation,  church,  or  religious  associa¬ 
tion,  shall  remain  a  member  thereof  until  he  shall  have 
separated  himself  therefrom,  in  the  manner  hereinafter  pro¬ 
vided.  And  each  and  every  society  or  denomination  of 
Christians  in  this  State  shall  have  and  enjoy  the  same  and 
equal  powers,  rights,  and  privileges ;  and  shall  have  power 
and  authority  to  support  and  maintain  the  ministers  or 
teachers  of  their  respective  denominations,  and  to  build  and 
repair  houses  for  public  worship  by  a  tax  on  the  members 


252 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Y. 


of  any  such  society  only,  to  be  laid  by  a  major  vote  of  the 
legal  voters  assembled  at  any  society  meeting,  warned  and 
held  according  to  law,  or  in  any  other  manner.”  Art.  VII. 
sec.  1. 

“  If  any  person  shall  choose  to  separate  himself  from 
the  society  or  denomination  of  Christians  to  which  he  may 
belong,  and  shall  leave  a  written  notice  thereof  with  the 
clerk  of  such  society,  he  shall  thereupon  be  no  longer  liable 
for  any  future  expenses  which  may  be  incurred  by  said 
society.”  ib.  sec.  2. 


Delaware — 1831 — “ Although  it  is  the  duty  of  all  men  fre¬ 
quently  to  assemble  together  for  the  public  worship  of  the 
Author  of  the  universe,  and  piety  and  morality,  on  which 
the  prosperity  of  communities  depends,  are  thereby  pro¬ 
moted,  yet  no  man  shall,  or  ought  to  be  compelled  to  attend 
any  religious  worship,  to  contribute  to  the  erection  or  sup¬ 
port  of  any  place  of  worship,  or  to  the  maintenance  of  any 
ministry,  against  his  own  free  will  and  consent ;  and  no 
power  shall  or  ought  to  be  vested  in  or  assumed  by  any 
magistrate  that  shall,  in  any  case,  interfere  with,  or  in  any 
manner  control,  the  rights  of  conscience  in  the  free  exercise 
of  religious  worship  ;  nor  shall  a  preference  be  given  by  law 
to  any  religious  societies,  denominations,  or  modes  of  wor¬ 
ship.”  Art  I.  sec.  1. 

“  No  religious  test  shall  be  required  as  a  qualification  to 
any  office  or  public  trust  under  the  State.”  ib.  sec.  2. 

“  No  ordained  clergyman  or  ordained  preacher  of  the 
gospel  of  any  denomination  shall  he  capable  of  holding  any 
civil  office  in  the  State,  or  of  being  a  member  of  either 
branch  of  the  legislature  while  he  continues  in  the  exercise 
of  the  pastoral  or  clerical  functions.”  Art.  VII.  sec.  8. 


Florida — 1868 — See  California  Art.  I.  sec.  4.  which  form 
is  the  same  as  that  of  this  State,  as  given  in  Art.  I.  sec.  5. 

“No  preference  can  be  given  by  law  to  any  church,  sect, 
or  mode  of  worship.  Art  I.  sec.  23. 


Georgia — 1868 — “  Perfect  freedom  of  religious  sentiment 
shall  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  secured,  and  no  inhabitant 
of  this  State  shall  ever  be  molested  in  person  or  property,  or 
prohibited  from  holding  any  public  office  or  trust,  on  ac¬ 
count  of  his  religious  opinion ;  but  the  liberty  of  conscience 
hereby  secured  shall  not  be  so  construed  as  to  excuse  acts  of 
licentiousness  or  justify  practices  inconsistent  with  the 
peace  or  safety  of  the  people.”  Art.  1.  sec  6. 


13. 


ITS  CONSTITUTIONS. 


253 


Illinois — 1870 — “Art.  II.  sec.  3  of  this  State  reads  as  Art. 
I.  sec.  4  of  Colorado. 


Indiana — 1851 — “All  men  shall  be  secured  in  their  nat¬ 
ural  right  to  worship  Almighty  God  according  to  the  dictates 
of  their  own  consciences.”  Art.  I.  sec.  2. 

“  No  law  shall,  in  any  case  whatever,  control  the  free 
exercise  and  enjoyment  of  religious  opinions,  or  interfere 
with  the  rights  of  conscience.”  ib.  sec.  3. 

“  No  preference  shall  be  given  by  law  to  any  creed,  re¬ 
ligious  society,  or  mode  of  worship ;  and  no  man  shall  be 
compelled  to  attend,  erect,  or  support  any  place  of  worship, 
or  to  maintain  any  ministry  against  his  consent.”  ib.  sec.  4. 

“No  religious  test  shall  be  required  as  a  qualification  for 
any  office  or  trust  of  profit.”  ib.  sec.  5. 

“  No  money  shall  be  drawn  from  the  treasury  for  the 
benefit  of  any  religious  or  theological  institution.”  ib.  sec.  6. 

“No  person  shall  be  rendered  incompetent  as  a  witness 
in  consequence  of  his  opinions  on  matters  of  religion.”  ib. 
sec.  7. 

“The  mode  of  administering  an  oath  or  affirmation 
shall  be  such  as  may  be  most  consistent  with  and  binding 
upon  the  conscience  of  the  person  to  whom  such  oath  or 
affirmation  may  be  administered.”  ib.  sec.  8. 


Iowa— 1857 — “The  general  assembly  shall  make  no  law 
respecting  an  establishment  of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the 
free  exercise  thereof;  nor  shall  any  person  be  compelled  to 
attend  any  place  of  worship,  pay  tithes,  taxes,  or  other  rates 
for  building  or  repairing  places  of  worship,  or  the  main¬ 
tenance  of  any  minister  or  ministry.”  Art.  I.  sec.  3. 

“  No  religious  test  shall  be  required  as  a  qualification  for 
any  office  or  public  trust,  and  no  person  shall  be  deprived  of 
any  of  his  rights,  privileges,  or  capacities,  or  disqualified 
from  the  performance  of  any  of  his  public  or  private  duties, 
or  rendered  incompetent  to  give  evidence  in  any  court  of 
law  or  equity,  in  consequence  of  his  opinion  on  the  subject 
of  religion ;  and  any  party  to  any  judicial  proceeding  shall 
have  the  right  to  use  as  a  witness  or  take  testimony  of,  any 
other  person  not  disqualified  on  account  of  interest,  who 
may  be  cognizant  of  any  fact  material  to  the  case ;  .  .  .  ib. 
sec.  4. 


Kansas — 1859 — “The  right  to  worship  God  according  to 
the  dictates  of  conscience  shall  never  be  infringed ;  nor 
shall  any  person  be  compelled  to  attend  or  support  any 
form  of  worship ;  nor  shall  any  control  of,  or  interference 


254 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


y. 


with,  the  rights  of  conscience  be  permitted ;  nor  any  prefer¬ 
ence  be  given  by  law  to  any  religious  establishment  or 
mode  of  worship.  No  religious  test  or  property  qualifica¬ 
tion  shall  be  required  for  any  office  or  public  trust,  nor  for 
any  vote  at  any  election ;  nor  shall  any  person  be  incom¬ 
petent  to  testify  on  account  of  religious  belief.”  Bill  of 
Bights,  sec.  7. 


Kentucky — 1850 — Art  VIII.  sec.  5  reads  as  Art.  II.  sec.  24 
of  Arkansas  St.  Const.,  wThich  see.  Besides,  this  State  de¬ 
clares: — 

“  That  the  civil  rights,  privileges,  or  capacities  of  any 
citizen  shall  in  no  wise  be  diminished  or  enlarged  on  ac¬ 
count  of  his  religion*”  ib.  sec.  6. 

“The  manner  of  administering  an  oath  or  affirmation 
shall  be  such  as  is  most  consistent  with  the  conscience  of 
the  deponent,  and  shall  be  esteemed  by  the  general  assembly 
the  most  solemn  appeal  to  God.”  Art.  VIII.  sec.  7. 


Louisiana — 1868 — “  Every  person  has  the  natural  right 
to  worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  conscience. 
No  religious  test  shall  be  required  as  a  qualification  for 
office.”  Art.  I.  sec.  12. 


Maine — 1820 — “All  men  have  a  natural  and  unalienable 
right  to  worship  Almighty  God  according  to  the  dictates  of 
their  own  conscience,  and  no  one  shall  be  hurt,  molested,  or 
restrained  in  his  person,  liberty,  or  estate,  for  worshipping 
God  in  the  manner  and  season  most  agreeable  to  the  dictates 
of  his  own  conscience,  nor  for  his  religious  professions  or 
sentiments,  provided  he  does  not  disturb  the  public  peace, 
nor  obstruct  others  in  their  religious  worship ;  and  all  per¬ 
sons  demeaning  themselves  peaceably,  as  good  members  of 
the  State,  shall  be  equally  under  the  protection  of  the  laws, 
and  no  subordination  nor  preference  of  any  one  sect  or  de¬ 
nomination  to  another  shall  ever  be  established  bv  law,  nor 
shall  any  religious  test  be  required  as  a  qualification  for  any 
office  or  trust  under  this  State ;  and  all  religious  societies  in 
the  State,  whether  incorporated  or  unincorporated,  shall  at 
all  times  have  the  exclusive  right  of  electing  their  public 
teachers,  and  contracting  with  them  for  their  support  and 
maintenance.”  Art.  1.  sec.  3. 


Maryland — 1867 — declares :  “  That  as  it  is  the  duty  of 
every  man  to  worship  God  in  such  manner  as  he  thinks 
most  acceptable  to  him,  all  persons  are  equally  entitled  to 


13. 


ITS  CONSTITUTIONS. 


255 


protection  in  their  religious  liberty ;  wherefore,  no  person 
ought,  by  any  law,  to  be  molested  in  his  person  or  estate  on 
account  of  his  religious  persuasion  or  profession,  or  for  his 
religious  practice,  unless,  under  the  color  of  religion,  he 
shall  disturb  the  good  order,  peace,  or  safety  of  the  State,  or 
shall  infringe  the  laws  of  morality,  or  injure  others  in  their 
natural,  civil,  or  religious  rights;  nor  ought  any  person  to 
be  compelled  to  frequent  or  maintain  or  contribute,  unless 
on  contract,  to  maintain  any  place  of  worship,  or  any  min¬ 
istry  ;  nor  shall  any  person,  otherwise  competent,  be  deemed 
incompetent  as  a  witness,  or  juror,  on  account  of  his  religious 
belief :  Provided,  He  believes  in  the  existence  of  God,  and 
that,  under  His  dispensation,  such  person  will  he  held  mor¬ 
ally  accountable  for  his  acts,  and  be  rewarded  or  punished 
therefor,  either  in  this  world  or  the  world  to  come.”  Dec. 
of  Rights ,  Art.  36. 

“  That  no  religious  test  ought  ever  to  be  required  as  a 
qualification  for  any  office  of  profit  or  trust  in  this  State, 
other  than  a  declaration  of  belief  in  the  existence  of  God ; 
nor  shall  the  legislature  prescribe  any  other  oath  of  office 
than  the  oath  prescribed  by  this  constitution.”  ib.  37. 

“  That  every  gift,  sale,  or  devise  of  land,  to  any  minis¬ 
ter,  public  teacher,  or  preacher  of  the  gospel,  as  such,  or  to 
any  religious  sect,  order,  or  denomination,  or  to,  or  for  the 
support,  use,  or  benefit  of,  or  in  trust  for,  any  minister, 
public  teacher,  or  preacher  of  the  gospel,  as  such,  or  any  re¬ 
ligious  sect,  order  or  denomination  ;  and  every  gift  or  sale  of 
goods,  or  chattels,  to  go  in  succession,  or  to  take  place  after 
the  death  of  the  seller  or  donor,  to  or  for  such  support,  use 
or  benefit ;  and  also  every  devise  of  goods,  or  chattels,  to  or 
for  the  support,  use,  or  benefit  of  any  minister,  public 
teacher,  or  preacher  of  the  gospel,  as  such,  or  any  religious 
sect,  order,  or  denomination,  without  the  prior  or  subse¬ 
quent  sanction  of  the  legislature,  shall  be  void ;  except 
always  any  sale,  gift,  lease,  or  devise  of  any  quantity  of 
land,  not  exceeding  five  acres,  for  a  church,  meeting  house, 
or  other  house  of  worship,  or  parsonage,  or  for  a  burying- 
ground,  which  shall  be  improved,  enjoyed,  or  used  only  for 
such  purposes ;  or  such  sale,  gift,  lease,  or  devise  shall  be 
void.”  ib.  Art.  38. 

“  That  the  manner  of  administering  an  oath  or  affirma¬ 
tion  to  any  person  ought  to  be  such  as  those  of  the  religious 
persuasion,  profession,  or  denomination  of  which  he  is  a 
member,  generally  esteem  the  most  effectual  confirmation  by 
the  attestation  of  the  Divine  Being.”  ib.  39. 


Massachusetts — 1780 — “  It  is  the  right  as  well  as  the  duty 
of  all  men  in  society,  publicly  and  at  stated  seasons,  to  wor- 


256 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


V. 


ship  the  Supreme  Being,  the  great  Creator  and  Preserver  of 
the  universe.  And  no  subject  shall  be  hurt,  molested,  or  re¬ 
strained,  in  his  person,  liberty,  or  estate,  for  worshipping  * 
God  in  the  manner  and  season  most  agreeable  to  the  dictates 
of  his  own  conscience,  or  for  his  religious  profession  or  sen¬ 
timents,  providod  he  doth  not  disturb  the  public  peace  or 
obstruct  others  in  their  religious  worship-”  Red.  of  Rights, 
Art.  II. 

“  As  the  public  worship  of  God,  and  the  instruction  in 
piety,  religion,  and  morality,  promote  the  happiness  and 
prosperity  of  a  people,  and  the  security  of  a  republican  gov¬ 
ernment  ;  therefore,  the  several  religious  societies  of  this  com¬ 
monwealth,  wThether  corporate  or  incorporate,  at  any  meet¬ 
ing  legally  wTarned  and  h olden  for  that  purpose,  shall  ever 
have  the  right  to  elect  their  pastors  or  religious  teachers,  to 
contract  with  them  for  their  support,  to  raise  money  for 
erecting  and  repairing  houses  for  public  worship,  for  the 
maintenance  of  religious  instruction,  and  for  the  payment  of 
necessary  expenses ;  and  all  persons  belonging  to  any  relig¬ 
ious  society  shall  be  taken  and  held  to  be  members,  until 
they  shall  file  wdth  the  clerk  of  said  society  a  written  notice 
declaring  the  dissolution  of  their  membership,  and  thence¬ 
forth  shall  not  be  liable  for  any  grant  or  contract  which  may 
be  thereafter  made  or  entered  into  by  such  society ;  and  all 
religious  sects  and  denominations,  demeaning  themselves 
peaceably  and  as  good  citizens  of  the  commonwealth,  shall 
be  equally  under  the  protection  of  the  law ;  and  no  subor¬ 
dination  of  any  one  sect  or  denomination  tf>  another  shall 
ever  be  established  by  law.”  Art.  III.  as  amended  in  1833. 


Michigan — 1850 — “  The  legislature  shall  pass  no  law  to 
prevent  any  person  from  worshipping  Almighty  God  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience,  or  to  compel  any 
person  to  attend,  erect,  or  support  any  place  of  religious 
worship,  or  to  pay  tithes,  taxes,  or  other  rates  for  the  sup¬ 
port  of  any  minister  of  the  gospel  or  teacher  of  religion.” 
Art.  IV*  sec.  39. 

“  The  legislature  shall  not  diminish  or  enlarge  the  civil 
or  political  rights,  privileges,  and  capacities  of  any  person  on 
account  of  his  opinion  or  belief  concerning  matters  of  relig¬ 
ion.”  ib.  sec.  41. 


Minnesota — 1857 — “  .  .  .  The  right  of  every  man  to  wor¬ 
ship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience 
shall  never  he  infringed,  nor  shall  any  man  be  compelled  to 
attend,  erect,  or  support  any  place  of  worship,  or  to  main- 


13. 


ITS  CONSTITUTIONS. 


257 


tain  any  religious  or  ecclesiastical  ministry,  against  his  con¬ 
sent,  nor  shall  any  control  of,  or  interference  with,  the 
rights  of  conscience  be  permitted,  or  any  preference  be  given 
by  law  to  any  religious  establishment  or  mode  of  worship ; 
but  the  liberty  of  conscience  hereby  secured  shall  not  be  so 
construed  as  to  excuse  acts  of  licentiousness,  or  justify  prac¬ 
tices  inconsistent  with  the  peace  or  safety  of  the  State,  nor 
shall  any  money  be  drawn  from  the  treasury  for  the  benefit 
of  any  religious  societies,  or  religious  or  theological  semina¬ 
ries.”  Art.  I.  sec.  16. 

“  No  religious  test  or  amount  of  property  shall  ever  be 
required  as  a  qualification  for  any  office  of  public  trust  un¬ 
der  the  State.  No  religious  test  or  amount  of  property  shall 
ever  be  required  as  a  qualification  of  asny  voter  at  any  elec¬ 
tion  in  this  State ;  nor  shall  any  person  be  rendered  incom¬ 
petent  to  give  evidence  in  any  court  of  law  or  equity  in 
consequence  of  his  opinion  on  the  subject  of  religion.”  ib. 
sec.  17. 


Mississippi — 1868 — “  No  religious  test  as  a  qualification 
for  office  shall  ever  be  required,  and  no  preference  shall 
ever  be  given  by  law  to  any  religious  sect  or  mode  of  wor¬ 
ship,  but  the  free  enjoyment  of  all  religious  sentiments  and 
the  different  modes  of  worship  shall  ever  be  held  sacred : 
Provided ,  The  rights  hereby  secured  shall  not  be  construed 
to  justify  acts  of  licentiousness  injurious  to  morals  or  dan¬ 
gerous  to  the  peace  and  safety  of  the  State.”  Art.  I.  sec.  23. 

“No  person  who  denies  the  existence  of  a  Supreme 
Being  shall  hold  any  office  in  this  State.”  Art.  XII.  sec.  3.* 


Missouri — 1875 — declares  “  That  all  men  have  a  natural 
and  indefeasible  right  to  worship  Almighty  God  according 
to  the  dictates  of  their  own  conscience ;  that  no  person  can, 
on  account  of  his  religious  opinions,  be  rendered  ineligible 
to  any  office  of  trust  or  profit  under  the  State,  nor  be  dis¬ 
qualified  from  testifying,  or  from  serving  as  a  juror;  that  no 
human  authority  can  control  or  interfere  with  the  rights  of 
conscience ;  that  no  person  ought,  by  any  law,  to  be  molested 
in  his  person  or  estate  on  account  of  his  religious  persua¬ 
sion  or  profession ;  but  the  liberty  of  conscience  hereby 
secured  shall  not  be  so  construed  as  to  excuse,”  etc.  Art. 
II.  sec.  5. 

“That  no  person  can  be  compelled  to  erect,  support,  or 


*  “Is  still  in  force  and  is  properly  enforoed.”  Henry  C.  Meyers, 
Sec.  State. 

11* 


258 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


y. 


attend  any  place  or  system  of  worship ;  .  .  .  .  but  if  any  per¬ 
son  shall  voluntarily  make  a  contract  for  any  such  object, 
he  shall  be  held  to  the  performance  of  the  same,”  ib.  sec.  6. 

“That  no  money  shall  ever  be  taken  from  the  public 
treasury,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  aid  of  any  church,  sect, 
.  .  .  .  and  that  no  preference  shall  be  given  to,  nor  any  dis¬ 
crimination  made  against,  any  church,  sect, .  .  .  .  ib.  sec.  7. 


Nebraska — 1875 — “All  persons  have  a  natural  and  inde¬ 
feasible  right  to  worship  Almighty  God  ....  No  person  shall 
be  compelled  to  attend,  erect,  or  support  any  place  of  wor¬ 
ship  ....  No  religious  test  shall  be  required  as  a  qualifica¬ 
tion  for  office  ....  Religion,  morality,  and  knowledge,  how¬ 
ever,  being  essential  to  good  government,  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  legislature  to  pass  suitable  laws  to  protect  every 
religious  denomination  in  the  peaceable  enjoyment  of  its 
own  mode  of  public  worship,  and  to  encourage  schools  and 
the  means  of  instruction.  Art.  I.  sec.  4. 


Nevada— 186-1 — Art.  I.  sec.  4  reads  the  same  as  Art.  I. 
sec.  4  of  Const,  of  the  State  of  California,  which  see. 


New  Hampshire — 1795 — The  form  of  Art.  5  of  Bill  of 
Rights  declared  by  this  State  is  the  same  as  Art.  I.  sec.  3  of 
the  State  of  Maine,  down  to  the  word  “worship” — which 
see. 

“As  morality  and  piety,  rightly  grounded  on  evangeli¬ 
cal  principles,  will  give  the  best  and  greatest  security  to 
government,  and  will  lay  in  the  hearts  of  men  the  strongest 
obligation  to  due  subjection ;  and  as  a  knowledge  of  these 
is  most  likely  to  be  propagated  through  a  society  by  the  in¬ 
stitution  of  the  public  worship  of  the  Deity,  and  of  public 
instruction  in  morality  and  religion;  therefore,  to  promote 
these  important  purposes,  the  people  of  this  State  have  a 
right  to  empower,  and  do  hereby  fully  empower,  the  legisla¬ 
ture  to  authorize,  from  time  to  time,  the  several  towns, 
parishes,  bodies  corporate,  or  religious  societies  within  this 
State,  to  make  adequate  provisions,  at  their  own  expense, 
for  the  support  and  maintenance  of  public  protestant  teach¬ 
ers  of  piety,  religion,  and  morality.  Provided  notwithstanding , 
That  the  several  towns,  parishes,  bodies  corporate,  or  relig¬ 
ious  societies,  shall  at  all  times  have  the  exclusive  right  of 
electing  their  own  public  teachers,  and  of  contracting  with 
them  for  their  support  and  maintenance.  And  no  person, 
or  any  one  particular  religious  sect  or  denomination,  shall 


13. 


ITS  CONSTITUTIONS. 


259 


ever  be  compelled  to  pay  toward  the  support  of  the  teacher 
or  teachers  of  another  persuasion,  sect  or  denomination  * 
.  .  .  .  ”  ib.  Art.  5. 


New  Jersey — 1844 — “No  person  shall  be  deprived/)f  the 
inestimable  privilege  of  worshipping  Almighty  God  in  a 
manner  agreeable  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience ; 
nor  under  pretence  whatever  be  compelled  to  attend  any 
place  of  worship  contrary  to  his  faith  and  judgment;  nor 
shall  any  person  be  obliged  to  pay  tithes,  taxes  ....  con¬ 
trary  to  what  he  believes  to  be  right,  or  has  deliberately  and 
voluntarily  engaged  to  perform.”  Art.  I.  Three. 

“There  shall  be  no  establishment  ....  no  religious  test. 
.  .  .  ”  ib.  Four. 


New  York — 1846 — Art.  I.  sec.  3  reads  as  Art.  I.  sec.  4  of 
California,  which  see. 


North  Carolina — 1876 — “All  men  have  a  natural  and  in¬ 
alienable  right  to  worship  Almighty  God  according  to  the 
dictates  of  their  own  consciences,  and  no  human  authority 
should,  in  any  case  whatever,  control  or  interfere  with  the 
rights  of  conscience.”  Art.  I.  sec.  26. 

“The  following  classes  of  persons  shall  be  disqualified 
for  office :  First,  all  persons  who  shall  deny  the  being  of  Al¬ 
mighty  God.  ...”  Art.  VI.  sec.  5.T 

“Religion,  morality,  and  knowledge  being  necessary  to 
good  government  and  the  happiness  of  mankind,  schools  and 
the  means  of  education  shall  forever  be  encouraged.”  Art. 
IX.  sec.  I. 


Ohio — 1851 — “All  men  have  a  natural  and  indefeasible 
right  to  worship  Almighty  God  according  to  the  dictates  of 
their  own  conscience.  No  person  shall  be  compelled  to  at¬ 
tend,  erect,  or  support  any  place  of  worship,  or  maintain 
any  form  of  worship,  against  his  consent  ;  and  no  preference 
shall  be  given  by  law  to  any  religious  society,  nor  shall 
any  interference  with  the  rights  of  conscience  be  permitted. 
No  religious  test  shall  be  required  as  a  qualification  for 
office,  nor  shall  any  person  be  incompetent  to  be  a  witness 
on  account  of  his  religious  belief;  but  nothing  herein  shall 
be  construed  to  dispense  with  oaths  and  affirmations.  Re- 


*It  farther  secures  protection  by  law  to  all  alike  and  forbids  estab 
lishment. 

1 1  know  of  no  case  where  the  question  has  arisen.”  M.  L.  Saunders 
Sec.  of  State. 


260 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


y. 


ligion,  morality,  and  knowledge,  however,  being  essential  to 
good  government,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  general  assem¬ 
bly  to  pass  suitable  laws  to  protect  every  religious  denomina¬ 
tion  in  the  peaceable  enjoyment  of  its  own  mode  of  public 
worship,  and  to  encourage  schools  and  the  means  of  instruc¬ 
tion.”  Art.  I.  sec.  7. 

“  The  principal  of  all  funds  arising  from  the  sale  or  other 
dispositions  of  lands  or  other  property,  granted  or  intrusted 
to  this  State  for  educational  and  religious  purposes,  shall  for¬ 
ever  be  preserved  inviolate  and  undiminished ;  and  the  in¬ 
come  arising  therefrom  shall  be  faithfully  applied  to  the 
specific  objects  of  the  original  grants  or  appropriations.” 
Art.  VI.  sec  I. 


Oregon — 1857 — Form  same  as  that  of  Indiana,  with  addi¬ 
tion  to  sec.  6  of  the  words:  “nor  shall  any  money  be  appro¬ 
priated  for  the  payment  of  any  religious  service,  in  either 
house  of  the  legislative  body”;  then  to  sec.  7  is  added:  “nor 
be  questioned  in  any  court  of  justice  concerning  his  religious 
belief  to  affect  the  weight  of  his  testimony.” 


Pennsylvania — 1873 — Art.  I.  sec.  3  is  in  form  identical 
with  Art.  II.  sec.  4  of  Arkansas,  which  see. 

“No  person  who  acknowledges  the  being  of  a  God  and  a 
future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments  shall,  on  account 
of  religious  sentiments,  be  disqualified  to  hold  any  office  or 
place  of  trust  or  profit  under  this  commonwealth.”  Art.  I. 
sec.  4. 


Rhode  Island — 1842 — “  Whereas  Almighty  God  hath  crea¬ 
ted  the  mind  free,  and  all  attempts  to  influence  it  by  tem¬ 
poral  punishment,  or  burdens,  or  by  civil  incapaciations, 
tend  to  beget  habits  of  hypocrisy  and  meanness ;  and  whereas 
a  principal  object  of  our  venerated  ancestors,  in  their  migra¬ 
tion  to  this  country  and  their  settlement  of  this  State,  was, 
as  they  expressed  it,  to  hold  forth  a  lively  experiment  that  a 
flourishing  State  may  stand  and  be  best  maintained  with  full 
liberty  in  religious  concernments  ;  we  therefore  declare,  that 
no  man  shall  be  compelled  to  frequent  or  support  any  relig¬ 
ious  worship,  place,  or  ministry  whatever,  except  in  fulfil¬ 
ment  of  his  own  voluntai  y  contract ;  nor  enforced,  restrained, 
molested,  or  burdened  in  his  body  or  goods ;  nor  disqualified 
from  holding  any  office  ;  nor  otherwise  suffer  on  account  of 
his  religious  belief ;  and  that  every  man  shall  be  free  to  wor¬ 
ship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience, 
and  to  profess,  and  by  arguments  to  maintain,  his  opinions 


13. 


r»S  CONSTITUTIONS. 


261 


in  matters  of  religion ;  and  that  the  same  shall  in  no  wise 
diminish,  enlarge,  or  affect  his  civil  capacity.”  Art.  I.  sec.  3. 


South  Carolina — 1868 — “No  person  shall  be  deprived  of 
the  right  to  worship  Almighty  God  according  to  the  dictates 
of  his  own  conscience:  Provided ,  That  the  liberty  of  con¬ 
science  hereby  declared  shall  not  justify  practices  inconsist¬ 
ent  with  the  peace  and  moral  safety  of  society.”  Art.  I. 
sec.  9. 

No  form  of  religion  shall  be  established  by  law ;  but  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  tbe  general  assembly  to  pass  suitable 
laws  to  protect  every  religious  denomination  in  the  peace¬ 
able  enjoyment  of  its  own  mode  of  worship.”  Art.  I  sec.  10. 


Tennessee — 1870 — For  Art.  1.  sec.  3  of  this  State  see  Ar¬ 
kansas  Art.  II.  sec.  24. 

“  That  no  political  or  religious  test,  other  than  an  oath  to 
support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  of  this 
State,  shall  ever  be  required  as  a  qualification  to  any  office 
or  public  trust  under  this  State.  Art.  1.  sec.  4. 

“  Whereas  ministers  of  the  gospel  are,  by  their  profes¬ 
sion,  dedicated  to  God  and  the  care  of  souls,  and  ought  not 
to  be  diverted  from  the  great  duties  of  their  functions ;  there¬ 
fore,  no  minister  of  the  gospel,  or  priest  of  any  denomina¬ 
tion  whatever,  shall  be  eligible  to  a  seat  in  either  house  of 
the  legislature.”  Art.  IX.  sec.  1.* 

“No  person  who  denies  the  being  of  God,  or  a  future 
state  of  rewards  and  punishments,  shall  hold  any  office  in 
the  civil  department  of  this  State.”  ib.  sec.  2. 


Texas — 1876 — “  No  religious  test  shall  ever  be  required  as 
a  qualification  to  any  office,  or  public  trust,  in  this  State; 
nor  shall  any  one  be  excluded  from  holding  office  on  ac¬ 
count  of  his  religious  sentiments ;  provided  he  acknowledge 
the  existence  of  a  Supreme  Being.  Art.  I.  sec.  4.t 

“No  person  shall  be  disqualified  to  give  evidence  in  any 


*  Sec.  2.  Art.  IX.  is  in  force  and  would  be  enforced  if  occasion  should 
require. 

The  desire  to  encourage  religion  ;  to  cultivate  morals ;  to  separate  as 
far  as  possible  the  State  and  Church  ;  and  knowing  the  advantages  in  ex¬ 
clusive  devotion  of  ministers  of  the  Gospel  to  the  care  of  souls,  are  the 
reasons  and  objects  of  Sec.  l.  Art.  IX.  Any  minister  may  abandon 
preaching  entirely  and  enter  politics,  and  his  disqualification  lasts  only 
while  a  bona  fide  regularly  ordained  minister.  He  cannot  do  both. 

Yours  truly,  D.  A.  Nunn,  Sec.  of  State. 

f  “  Is  now  in  force.  I  know  of  no  case  in  which  it  has  been  applied.” 
H.  L.  Spain,  Sec.  State. 


262 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


V. 


of  the  courts  of  this  State  on  account  of  his  religious  opin¬ 
ions,  or  for  the  want  of  any  religious  belief  .  .  .  ib.  sec.  5. 

“All  men  have  a  natural  and  indefeasible  right ....  No 
man  shall  be  compelled  to  attend,  erect,  .  .  .  No  human  au¬ 
thority  ought,  in  any  case  whatever,  to  control  or  interfere 
with  .  .  .  But  it  shall  he  the  duty  of  the  legislature  to  pass 
such  laws  as  may  be  necessary  to  protect  equally  ....  ib. 
sec.  6. 

“No  money  shall  be  appropriated  or  drawn  from  the 
treasury  for  the  benefit  of  any  sect ...”  ib.  sec.  7. 


Vermont — 1793 — That  all  men  have  a  natural  and  un¬ 
alienable  right  to  worship  Almighty  God  according  to  the 
dictates  of  their  own  consciences  and  understandings,  as  in 
their  opinion  shall  be  regulated  by  the  word  of  God ;  and 
that  no  man  ought  to,  or  of  right  can,  be  compelled  to 
attend  any  religious  worship,  or  erect  or  support  any  place 
of  worship,  or  maintain  any  minister,  contrary  to  the  dic¬ 
tates  of  his  conscience;  nor  can  any  man  be  justly  deprived 
or  abridged  of  any  civil  right  as  a  citizen,  on  account  of  his 
religious  sentiments  or  peculiar  mode  of  religious  worship ; 
and  that  no  authority  can  or  ought  to  be  vested  in  or  as¬ 
sumed  by  any  power  whatever,  that  shall  in  any  case  inter¬ 
fere  with  or  in  any  manner  control  the  rights  of  conscience 
in  the  free  exercise  of  religious  worship.  Nevertheless, 
every  sect  or  denomination  of  Christians  ought  to  observe 
the  Sabbath,  or  Lord’s  day,  and  keep  up  some  sort  of  relig¬ 
ious  worship,  which  to  them  shall  seem  most  agreeable  to 
the  revealed  will  of  God.”  Chap.  I.  Art.  III. 


Virginia — 1870 — declares —  :  “That  religion,  or  the  duty 
which  we  owe  to  our  Creator,  and  the  manner  of  discharg¬ 
ing  it,  can  be  directed  only  by  reason  and  conviction,  not 
by  force  or  violence;  and,  therefore,  all  men  are  equally  en¬ 
titled  to  the  free  exercise  of  religion,  according  to  the  dic¬ 
tates  of  conscience;  and  that  it  is  the  mutual  duty  of  all  to 
practice  Christian  forbearance,  love,  and  charity  towards 
each  other.”  *  Art.  I.  sec.  18. 

“No  man  shall  be  compelled  to  frequent  or  support 
any  religious  worship,  place,  or  ministry  whatsoever;  nor 
shall  any  man  be  forced,  restrained,  molested,  or  burdened 
in  his  body  or  goods,  or  otherwise  suffer  on  account  of  his 
religious  opinions  or  belief,  but  all  men  shall  be  free  to  pro¬ 
fess,  and  by  argument  to  maintain,  their  opinions  in  matters 
of  religion,  and  the  same  shall  in  no  wise  affect,  diminish, 
or  enlarge  their  civil  capacities.  And  the  general  assembly 


*  This  form  is  from  the  first  Decl.  of  Rights,  of  May  6.  A.  D.  1776. 


13. 


ITS  CONSTITUTIONS. 


263 


shall  not  prescribe  any  religious  test  whatever,  or  confer 
any  peculiar  privileges  or  advantages  on  any  sect  or  de¬ 
nomination,  or  pass  any  law  requiring  or  authorizing  any 
religious  society,  or  the  people  of  any  district  within  this 
commonwealth,  to  levy  on  themselves  or  others  any  tax  for 
the  erection  or  repair  of  any  house  of  public  worship,  or  for 
the  support  of  any  church  or  ministry,  but  it  shall  be  left 
free  to  every  person  to  select  his  religious  instructor,  and  to 
make  for  his  support  such  private  contract  as  he  shall 
please.  Art.  Y.  sec.  14. 


West  Virginia — 1872 — same  as  Art.  V.  sec.  14  of  Ya. 


Wisconsin — 1848 — see  Minnesota ;  and  omit:  “or  amount 
of  property.” 


To  exhibit  the  advance  of  thought  with  regard 
to  the  relation  of  things  civil  and  things  religious, 
the  following  two  extracts  are  subjoined.  The  one 
is  from  “  The  Fundamental  Constitutions  of  Carolina 
— A .  D.  1669” — and  framed  by  the  distinguished 
philosopher  John  Locke  ;  the  other  is  taken  from  the 
“  Frame  of  Government  of  Pennsylvania — 1682 —  ”,  be¬ 
ing  “laws  agreed  upon  in  England  by  William 
Penn ,  Governor  and  chief  proprietor  of  Pensilvania 
etc. 

“  Ninety -five.  No  man  shall  be  permitted  to  be 
a  freeman  of  Carolina,  or  to  have  any  estate  or  hab¬ 
itation  within  it,  that  doth  not  acknowledge  a  God  ; 
and  that  God  is  publicly  and  solemnly  to  be  wor¬ 
shipped.” 

u  Ninety -six.  *  As  the  country  comes  to  be  suffi¬ 
ciently  planted  and  distributed  into  fit  divisions,  it 

*This  Art.  was  not  drawn  up  by  Mr.  Locke,  but  in¬ 
serted  by  some  of  the  chiefs  of  the  proprietors,  against  his 
judgment;  as  Mr.  Locke  himself  informed  one  of  his  friends, 
to  whom  he  presented  a  copy  of  these  institutions.”  See  Char¬ 
ters  and  Constitutions  by  Ben.  Perley  Poore ,  Vol.  II.  p.  1406. 


264 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


V. 


shall  belong  to  the  parliament  to  take  care  for  the 
building  of  churches,  and  the  public  maintenance 
of  divisions,  to  be  employed  in  the  exercise  of  re¬ 
ligion,  according  to  the  Church  of  England ;  which 
being  the  only  true  and  orthodox,  and  the  national 
religion  of  all  the  King’s  dominions,  is  so  also  of 
Carolina;  und,  therefore,  it  alone  shall  be  allowed 
to  receive  public  maintenance,  by  grant  of  parlia¬ 
ment.” 

“ Ninety-seven .  But  since  the  natives  of  that 
place,  who  will  be  concerned  in  our  plantation,  are 
utterly  strangers  to  Christianity,  whose  idolatry, 
ignorance,  or  mistake  gives  us  no  right  to  expel  or 
use  them  ill ;  and  those  who  move  from  other  parts 
to  plant  there  will  unavoidaly  be  of  different  opin¬ 
ions  concerning  matters  of  religion,  the  liberty 
whereof  they  will  expect  to  have  allowed  them, 
and  it  will  not  be  reasonable  for  us,  on  this  account, 
to  keep  them  out,  that  civil  peace  may  be  main¬ 
tained  amidst  adversity  of  opinions,  and  our  agree¬ 
ment  and  compact  with  all  men  may  be  duly  and 
faithfully  observed;  the  violation  whereof,  upon 
what  pretence  soever,  cannot  be  without  great  of¬ 
fence  to  Almighty  God,  and  great  scandal  to  the 
true  religion  which  we  profess;  and  also  that  Jews, 
heathens,  and  other  dissenters  from  the  purity  of 
the  Christian  religion  may  not  be  scared  and  kept 
at  a  distance  from  it,  but,  by  having  an  opportunity 
of  acquainting  themselves  with  the  truth  and  rea¬ 
sonableness  of  its  doctrines,  and  the  peaceableness 
and  inoffensiveness  of  its  professors,  may,  by  good 
usage  and  persuasion,  and  all  those  convincing  meth¬ 
ods  of  gentleness  and  meakness,  suitable  to  the 
rules  and  design  of  the  gospel,  be  won  over  to  em- 


’13. 


ITS  CONSTITUTIONS. 


265 


brace  and  unfeignedly  receive  the  truth  ;  therefore, 
any  seven  or  more  persons  agreeing  in  any  religion, 
shall  constitute  a  church  or  profession,  to  which 
they  shall  give  some  name,  to  distinguish  it  from 
others.” 

u  One  hundred .  In  the  terms  of  communion  in 
every  church  or  profession,  these  following  shall  be 
three ;  without  which  no  agreement  or  assembly  of 
men,  upon  pretence  of  religion,  shall  be  accounted 
a  church  or  profession  within  these  rules : 

I.  That  there  is  a  God. 

II.  That  God  is  publicly  to  be  worshipped. 

III.  That  it  is  lawful  and  the  duty  of  every 
man,  being  thereunto  called  by  those  that  govern, 
to  bear  witness  to  truth ;  and  that  every  church  or 
profession  shall,  in  their  terms  of  communion,  set 
down  the  external  way  whereby  they  witness  a 
truth  as  in  the  presence  of  God,  whether  it  is  by 
laying  hands  on  or  kissing  the  bible,  as  in  the 
Church  of  England,  or  by  holding  up  the  hand,  or 
any  other  sensible  way.” 

“  One  hundred  and  one.  No  person  above  seven¬ 
teen  years  of  age  shall  have  any  benefit  or  protec¬ 
tion  of  the  law,  or  be  capable  of  any  place  or  profit 
of  honor,  who  is  not  a  member  of  some  church  or 
profession,  having  his  name  recorded  in  some  one, 
and  but  one  religious  record  at  once.” 

“  One  hundred  and  nine.  No  person  whatsoever 
shall  disturb,  molest,  or  persecute  another  for  his 
speculative  opinions  in  religion,  or  his  way  of  wor¬ 
ship.”* 


*  This  Constitution  was  never  made  fully  operative.  See 
“Charters  and  Const,  of  U.  States,”  p.  1397. 

12 


266 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


V. 


Among  the  Penn  laws  we  find  these : 

“XXXIV.  That  all  Treasurers,  Judges,  .... 
and  other  officers  and  persons  whatsoever,  relating 
to  courts  .  .  .  .  ;  and  all  members  elected  to  serve  in 
the  provincial  Council  and  General  Assembly,  and 
all  that  have  right  to  elect  such  members,  shall 
be  such  as  profess  faith  in  Jesus  Christ . ” 

“  XXXV.  That  all  persons  living  in  this  prov¬ 
ince,  who  confess  and  acknowledge  the  one  Al¬ 
mighty  and  eternal  God,  to.be  the  Creator,  Up¬ 
holder  and  Ruler  of  the  world  ;  and  that  hold  them¬ 
selves  obliged  in  conscience  to  live  peaceably  and 
justly  in  civil  society,  shall,  in  no  ways,  be  molested 
or  prejudiced  for  their  religious  persuasion,  or  prac¬ 
tice,  in  matters  of  faith  and  worship,  nor  shall  they 
be  compelled,  at  any  time,  to  frequent  or  maintain 
any  religious  worship,  place  or  ministry  whatever.” 

“XXXVI.  That  according  to  the  good  ex¬ 
ample  of  the  primitive  Christians . every 

first  day  of  the  week,  called  the  Lord’s  day,  people 
shall  abstain  from  their  common  daily  labor,  that 
they  may  the  better  dispose  themselves  to  worship 
God  according  to  their  own  understandings.” 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTIONS  OF  THE  AMER¬ 
ICAN  UNION. 

This,  as  given  by  Judge  Cooley,  shows  that  the 
following  things  are  unlawful  throughout  the  Na¬ 
tion  : 

“  1.  Any  law  respecting  an  establishment  of  re¬ 
ligion. 


ITS  CONSTITUTIONS. 


267 


§  13. 


“2.  Compulsory  support ,  by  taxation  or  otherwise , 
o/  religious  instruction . 

“3.  Compulsory  attendance  upon  religious  wor¬ 
ship . 

“4.  Restraints  upon  the  free  exercise  of  religion 
according  to  the  dictates  of  the  conscience . 

“5.  Restraints  upon  the  expression  of  religious  be¬ 
lief”  (Const.  Limitations ,  p.  469.) 

By  the  adoption  of  the  XIV.  Amendment  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  every  relig¬ 
ious  test  as  a  qualification  for  voting  or  holding 
office  under  the  Government  is  forbidden,  so  that, 
as  far  as  the  National  Government  comes  into  ques¬ 
tion,  every  such  test,  as  required  by  a  particular 
State,  is  in  effect  made  null  and  void.*  The  first 
section  of  this  Amendment  declares  that  “No  State 
shall  make  or  enforce  any  law  which  shall  abridge 
the  privileges  or  immunities  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States  .  . 

Finally,  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  by  the  adop¬ 
tion  of  Art.  V.  sec.  14  in  1785-6  by  the  State  of 
Virginia  (see  above),  Church-Stateism  was  com¬ 
pletely  swept  from  the  land.  “After  almost  two 
centuries  of  Church  Establishment,  wTith  the  vary¬ 
ing  incidents  of  toleration  and  persecution,  at  last,, 
through  the  influence  of  a  civil  revolution  based 
upon  the  natural  rights  of  man,  Virginia  was 
brought  to  declare  the  inviolability  of  conscience 
in  religion  as  fundamental  to  liberty  in  the  State. 
Religious  freedom  was  no  crude  experiment  of  an 
abstract  theory,  but  a  practical  conception  devel- 

*  The  penalty  is  a  proportionate  reduction  of  represen¬ 
tation  in  the  National  Government. 


268 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


V. 


oped  by  long  experience.  In  this  view  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  Virginia  has  the  weight  of  history,  as  well 
as  the  wisdom  of  philosophy.”  ( Thompson ,  Ch.  & 
St.  p.  37.) 

§  14.  ANNOTATIONS,  ESPECIALLY  ON  THE  NA¬ 
TIONAL  CONSTITUTION  RESPECTING  THE  RE¬ 
LATION  OF  STATE  AND  CHURCH.  ' 

George  Bancroft ,  speaking  of  our  subject  matter, 
in  his  very  interesting  “  History  of  the  Formation  of 
the  Constitution ,”  says:  “No  one  thought  of  vindica¬ 
ting  religion  for  the  conscience  of  the  individual 
till  a  voice  in  Judea,  breaking  day  for  the  greatest 
epoch  in  the  life  of  humanity — by  establishing  a 
pure,  spiritual,  and  universal  religion  for  all  man¬ 
kind — enjoined  to  render  to  Caesar  only  that  which 
is  Caesar’s.  The  rule  was  upheld  during  the  in¬ 
fancy  of  the  Gospel  for  all  men.  No  sooner  was  the 
religion  adopted  by  the  chief  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
than  it  was  shorn  of  its  character  of  universality 
and  enthralled  by  an  unholy  connection  with  the 
unholy  State;  and  so  it  continued  till  the  new 
nation — the  least  defiled  with  the  barren  scoffings 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  most  general  believer 
in  Christianity  of  any  people  of  that  age,  the  chief 
heir  of  the  Reformation  in  its  purest  form — when 
it  came  to  establish  a  government  for  the  United 
States,  refused  to  treat  faith  as  a  matter  to  be  regu¬ 
lated  by  a  corporate  body,  or  having  a  headship  in 
a  monarch  or  State.” 

“Vindicating  the  right  of  inviduality  even  in 


§14. 


ANNOTATIONS. 


269 


religion,  and  in  religion  above  all,  the  new  nation 
dared  to  set  the  example  of  accepting  in  its  relation 
to  God  the  principle  first  divinely  ordained  in 
Judea.  It  left  the  management  of  temporal  things 
to  the  temporal  power;  .but  the  American  Consti¬ 
tution,  in  harmony  with  the  people  of  the  several 
States,  withheld  from  the  federal  government  the 
power  to  invade  the  home  of  reason,  the  citadel  of 
conscience,  the  sanctuary  of  the  soul ;  and  not  from 
indifference,  but  that  the  infinite  Spirit  of  eternal 
truth  might  move  in  its  freedom  and  purity,  and 
power/’  II.  p.  325. 

It  is  related  that,  following  the  adjournment  of 
the  convention  which  framed  the  Magna  Charta  of 
our  country,  a  certain  Dr.  Miller,  of  Princeton  Col¬ 
lege,  meeting  Alexander  Hamilton  in  the  streets  of 
Philadelphia,  said:  u  Mr.  Hamilton,  we  are  greatly 
grieved  that  the  Constitution  contains  no  recogni¬ 
tion  of  God  or  of  the  Christian  religion!”  To  this 
Hamilton  is  to  have  given  the  answer:  “I  declare, 
we  forgot  it!”  If  the  story  is  true,  then,  we  fear, 
Hamilton  slightly  pervaricated,  perhaps  to  avoid  a 
discussion.  President  Washington,  certainly,  did 
not  look  upon  the  omission  as  a  matter  of  over¬ 
sight;  for  when,  in  1787,  his  attention  was  called  to 
it  by  a  certain  Presbytery  (Eastward?)  of  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  he  replied :  “  I  am  persuaded  you  will 

permit  me  to  observe  that  the  path  of  true  piety  is 
so  plain  as  to  acquire  but  little  political  direction. 
To  this  consideration  we  ought  to  ascribe  the  ab¬ 
sence  of  any  regulation  respecting  religion  from  the 
Magna  Charta  of  our  country.  To  the  guidance  of 
the  ministers  of  the  Gospel  this  important  object 


270 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


v. 


is,  perhaps,  more  properly  committed.”  When  in 
connection  with  this  we  take  into  consideration  the 
character  of  the  men  constituting  that  convention, 
their  experience,  their  circumspection,  their  dili¬ 
gent  reference  to  the  constitutions  of  other  lands — 
all  of  which  expressed  themselves  on  the  subject  of 
religion — and,  lastly,  the  grand  object  they  had  in 
view,  i.  e.,  to  establish  full  religious  as  well  as  civil 
liberty — we  cannot  but  conclude  that  “the  absence 
of  any  regulation  respecting  religion”  was  wisely 
intentional  and  the  result  of  mature  deliberation. 

It  is  evident  that  the  Constitutions  of  the  sev¬ 
eral  States, — almost  without  any  exceptions — as 
well  as  that  of  the  Nation,  purposely  refrain  from 
fastening  any  religious  confession,  even  in  its  most 
general  form,  upon  the  people  of  the  land.  There 
is  in  none  of  them  neither  a  denial  nor  a  confes¬ 
sion  of  any  particular  form  of  religion ;  no  creed  is 
interfered  with,  and  none  is  enjoined  to  be  propa¬ 
gated;  but  the  fact  of  the  Christian  character  of 
the  people  generally  and,  we  may  add,  of  the  polit¬ 
ical  worth  of  religion,  is  recognized  :  and  protec¬ 
tion,  nothing  more,  is  accorded  to  every  mode  of 
worship,  provided  it  be  not  found  inconsistent  with 
the  public  peace  and  safety. 

This  position,  assumed  by  the  framers  of  our 
National  Constitution,  has  from  that  time  on  to 
this  day  been  misunderstood  by  many,  both  among 
the  friends  and  enemies  of  religion.  While  its 
friends  have  deeply  deplored  the  fact  that  the 
Christian  religion  has  received  no  formal  recogni¬ 
tion,  its  enemies  have  chuckled  over  it  as  though 
it  were  a  triumph  of  infidelity.  But  viewed  his- 


14. 


ANNOTATIONS. 


271 


torically,  and  properly  interpreted,  the  attitude 
there  assumed  is  not  one  of  indifference  and,  least 
of  all,  of  hostility  to  the  cause  of  religion. 

The  illustrious  authors  of  our  national  Magna 
Charta  were  themselves  professors  mostly  of  the 
Christian  faith.  Never  would  this  grand  instru¬ 
ment  of  State  have  received  the  approval  and  sig¬ 
nature  of  such  men  as  Washington,  Sherman,  King, 
Gov.  Morris,  C.  C.  Pinckney,  Madison,  Livingston, 
and  others,  did  it  in  any  way  imply  a  denial  of 
their  most  holy  convictions  or  contravene  their 
most  sacred  interests.  No,  they  held  that  the  in¬ 
terests  of  both  the  Church  and  the  State  would  be 
best  subserved  were  these  kept  separate  and  each 
left  to  itself  in  the  management  of  its  own  affairs. 
“  It  has  been  concluded,”  says  a  certain  writer, 
“  that  Christianity  cannot  have  any  direct  connec¬ 
tion  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  on 
the  ground  that  the  instrument  contains  no  express 
declaration  to  that  effect.  But  the  error  of  such 
a  conclusion  becomes  manifest  when  we  reflect  that 
the  same  is  the  case  with  regard  to  several  other 
truths,  which  are,  notwithstanding,  fundamental  in 
our  constitutional  system.  The  Declaration  of  In¬ 
dependence  says  that  ‘  governments  are  instituted 
among  men  to  secure  the  rights  of  life,  liberty,  and 
the  pursuit  of  happiness;’  and  that,  1  whenever  any 
form  of  government  becomes  destructive  of  these 
ends,  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  alter  or  to 
abolish  it,  and  to  institute  a  new  government.’ 
These  principles  lie  at  the  foundation  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution  of  the  United  States.  No  principles  in 
the  Constitution  are  more  fundamental  than  these. 


272 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


V. 


But  the  instrument  contains  no  declaration  to  this 
effect;  these  principles  are  nowhere  mentioned  in 
it;  and  the  references  to  them  are  equally  slight 
and  indirect  with  those  which  are  made  to  the 
Christian  religion.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the 
great  republican  truth  that  political  sovereignty  re¬ 
sides  in  the  people  of  the  United  States.  If,  then, 
any  one  may  rightfully  conclude  that  Christianity 
has  no  connection  with  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  because  this  is  nowhere  expressly  de¬ 
clared  in  the  instrument,  he  ought,  in  reason,  to  be 
equally  convinced  that  the  same  Constitution  is  not 
built  upon  and  does  not  recognize  the  sovereignty 
of  the  people,  and  the  great  republican  truths  above 
quoted  from  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  This 
argument  receives  additional  strength  when  we  con¬ 
sider  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was 
founded  directly  for  political  and  not  for  religious 
objects.  The  truth  is,  they  are  equally  fundamen¬ 
tal,  though  neither  of  them  is  expressly  mentioned 
in  the  Constitution.  Besides,  the  Constitution  con¬ 
templates,  and  is  fitted  for,  such  a  state  of  society 
as  Christianity  alone  can  form.  It  contemplates  a 
state  of  society  in  which  strict  integrity,  simplicity, 
and  purity  of  manners,  wide  diffusion  of  knowl¬ 
edge,  well-disciplined  passions,  and  wrise  modera¬ 
tion,  are  the  general  characteristics  of  the  people. 
These  virtues,  in  our  nation,  are  the  offspring  of 
Christianity,  and  without  the  continued  general 
belief  of  its  doctrines  and  practice  of  its  precepts 
they  will  gradually  decline  and  eventually  perish.” 

Whether  now  the  Christian  religion,  in  its 
most  general  principles,  is  really  fundamental  to 


§14. 


ANNOTATIONS. 


273 


the  Constitution  of  our  country  or  not,  the  reader 
may  judge  for  himself.  That  it  was  drawn  up  by 
men  such  as  entertained  a  deep  respect  for  relig¬ 
ion,  and  among  whom  there  were  many  who  pro¬ 
fessed  Christianity  and  were  members  of  church; 
that  it  was  intended  for  a  people  generally  devoted 
to  the  Christian  religion ;  that  it  has  rendered  the 
greatest  service  which  a  national  document  of  its 
kind  can  possibly  render  the  Church,  by  establish¬ 
ing  absolute  religious  freedom,  by  closely  distin¬ 
guishing  between  the  provinces  of  politics  and  re¬ 
ligion,  by  forbidding  ecclesiastical  establishments 
as  also  the  requirement  of  any  religious,  test  as  a 
qualification  to  any  public  office — such  are  indis¬ 
putable  facts  and  they  show  beyond  a  shadow  of 
doubt  that  the  instrument  throughout  is  friendly, 
yes,  highly  serviceable,  to  the  cause  of  religion. 
A  more  wise,  safe  and  beneficent  political  treat¬ 
ment  than  that  which  the  matter  of  religion  re¬ 
ceives  at  the  hands  of  our  government,  could  not 
be  devised ;  it  is  in  full  accord  with  the  precept  of 
Christ  Himself,  to  render  unto  Caesar  the  things 
that  are  Caesar’s,  and  unto  God  the  things  that  are 
God’s. 

“  Probably  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution  and  of  the  Amendment  to  it,”  says 
Judge  Story  in  speaking  of  this  matter,  “  the  gen¬ 
eral,  if  not  the  universal,  sentiment  in  America 
was  that  Christianity  ought  to  receive  encourage¬ 
ment  from  the  State,  so  far  as  such  encouragement 
was  not  incompatible  with  the  private  rights  of 
conscience  and  the  freedom  of  religious  worship. 
An  attempt  to  level  all  religions,  and  to  make  it  a 


274 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


V. 


matter  of  state  policy  to  hold  all  in  utter  indiffer¬ 
ence,  would  have  created  universal  disapprobation, 
if  not  universal  indignation.”  (Com.  on  the  Const. 
§  1874.)  And  again :  “  The  real  object  of  the 
Amendment  was  not  to  countenance,  much  less  to 
advance,  Mahometanism,  or  Judaism,  or  infidelity, 
by  prostrating  Christianity;  but  to  exclude  all 
rivalry  among  Christian  sects,  and  to  prevent  any 
national  ecclesiastical  establishment,  which  would 
give  to  a  hierarchy  the  exclusive  patronage  of  the 
national  government.”  (ib.  1877.)  “Whatever,  in¬ 
deed,  may  have  been  the  desire  of  many  persons  of 
a  deep  religious  feeling  to  have  embodied  some 
provision  on  this  subject  in  the  Constitution,  it 
may  be  safely  affirmed  that  hitherto  the  absence 
has  not  been  felt  as  an  evil ;  and  that  while  Chris¬ 
tianity  continues  to  be  the  belief  of  the  enlight¬ 
ened  and  wise  and  pure  among  the  electors,  it  is 
impossible  that  infidelity  can  find  an  easy  home 
in  the  House  of  Representatives.”  (ib.  §  622  on 
Art.  VI.,  §  3,  of  the  Const.)  “The  same  policy,” 
says  this  eminent  jurist,  “which  introduced  into 
the  Constitution  the  prohibition  of  any  religious 
test,  led  to  this  more  extended  prohibition  of  the 
interference  of  Congress  in  religious  concerns.” 
(See  first  Amend.)  “We  are  not  to  attribute  this 
prohibition  of  a  national  religious  establishment 
to  an  indifference  to  religion  in  general,  and  espe¬ 
cially  to  Christianity  (which  none  could  hold  in 
more  reverence  than  the  framers  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tion),  but  to  a  dread  by  the  people  of  the  influence 
of  ecclesiastical  power  in  matters  of  government, 
— a  dread  which  their  ancestors  brought  with  them 
from  the  parent  country,  and  which,  unhappily 


14. 


ANNOTATIONS. 


275 


for  human  infirmity,  their  own  conduct,  after  their 
emigration,  had  not  in  any  just  degree  tended  to 
diminish.  It  was  also  obvious,  from  the  numerous 
and  powerful  sects  in  the  United  States,  that  there 
would  be  perpetual  temptations  to  struggles  for 
ascendency  in  the  national  councils,  if  any  one 
might  thereby  hope  to  found  a  permanent  and  ex¬ 
clusive  national  establishment  of  its  own ;  and  re¬ 
ligious  persecutions  might  thus  be  introduced,  to 
an  extent  utterly  subversive  of  the  true  interests 
and  good  order  of  the  republic.  The  most  effectual 
mode  of  suppressing  the  evil,  in  the  view  of  the 
people,  was  to  strike  down  the  temptations  to  its 
introduction.  How  far  any  government  has  a 
right  to  interfere  in  matters  touching  religion,  has 
been  a  matter  much  discussed  by  writers  upon 
public  and  political  law  .  .  .  The  right  of  a  society 
or  government  to  interfere  in  matters  of  religion 
will  hardly  be  contested  by  any  persons  who  be¬ 
lieve  that  piety,  religion,  and  morality  are  inti¬ 
mately  connected  with  the  well-being  of  the  State 
and  indispensable  to  the  administration  of  civil 
justice.  The  promulgation  of  the  great  doctrines 
of  religion, — the  being  and  attributes  and  provi¬ 
dence  of  one  Almighty  God,  the  responsibility  to 
Him  for  all  our  actions,  founded  upon  moral  ac¬ 
countability,  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punish¬ 
ments,  the  cultivation  of  all  the  personal,  social, 
and  benevolent  virtues, — these  never  can  be  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  indifference  in  a  well-ordered  community. 
It  is,  indeed,  difficult  to  conceive  how  any  civil¬ 
ized  society  can  exist  without  them.  And,  at  all 
events,  it  is  impossible  for  those  who  believe  in 
the  truth  of  Christianity  as  a  divine  revelation  to 


276 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Y. 


doubt  that  it  is  the  special  duty  of  Government  to 
foster  and  encourage  it  among  all  the  citizens  and 
subjects.  This  is  a  point  wholly  distinct  from 
that  of  the  right  of  private  judgment  in  matters 
of  religion,  and  of  the  freedom  of  public  worship 
according  to  the  dictates  of  one’s  conscience.  The 
real  difficulty  lies  in  ascertaining  the  limits  to 
which  Government  may  rightfully  go  in  fostering 
and  encouraging  religion.11  (ib.  §  1871.)  When 
the  distinguished  commentator  here  speaks  of  it 
as  a  “  special  duty  of  Government  to  foster  and  en¬ 
courage1’  the  Christian  religion,  and  that  concern¬ 
ing  this  Christians  themselves  can  have  no  doubts, 
the  language,  indeed,  is  very  strong.  However 
the  context  clearly  indicates  that  the  fostering  of 
Christianity  here  spoken  of  as  a  duty  of  State  is 
such  as  in  no  way  interferes  with  the  enjoyment  of 
full  religious  liberty  by  its  every  subject — a  foster¬ 
ing  and  encouragement  of  religion,  therefore,  of  a 
rather  indirect  kind  is  meant,  such  as  it  receives, 
for  example,  by  a  zealous  vindication  of  its  right 
to  freedom,  to  protection,  and  to  friendly  consider¬ 
ation,  but  not  by  such  questionable  favors  as  are 
test-acts,  establishments,  taxation,  etc. 

On  this  fundamental  law  of  our  National  Con¬ 
stitution  one  of  the  most  concise,  lucid  and  cor¬ 
rect  expositions  is  given  in  his  “  Commentaries ”  by 
James  Bayard ,  of  Delaware.  He  says:  “It  has  been 
made  an  objection  to  the  Constitution,  by  some, 
that  it  makes  no  mention  of  religion,  contains  no 
recognition  of  the  existence  and  providence  of 
God, — as  though  His  authority  were  slighted  or 
disregarded.  But  such  is  not  the  reason  of  the 


14. 


ANNOTATIONS. 


277 


omission.  The  convention  which  framed  the  Con¬ 
stitution  comprised  some  of  the  wisest  and  best 
men  of  the  nation, — men  who  were  firmly  persuaded 
not  only  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  Christian  re¬ 
ligion,  but  also  of  its  importance  to  the  temporal 
and  eternal  welfare  of  men.  The  people,  too,  of 
this  country  were  generally  impressed  with  relig¬ 
ious  feelings,  and  felt  and  acknowledged  the  super¬ 
intendence  of  God,  who  had  protected  them  through 
the  perils  of  war  and  blessed  their  exertions  to 
obtain  civil  and  religious  freedom.  But  there  were 
reasons  why  the  introduction  of  religion  into  the 
Constitution  would  have  been  unreasonable,  if  not 
improper.” 

u  In  the  first  place,  it  was  intended  exclusively 
for  civil  purposes,  and  religion  could  not  be  regu¬ 
larly  mentioned,  because  it  made  no  part  of  the 
agreement  between  the  parties.  They  were  about 
to  surrender  a  portion  of  their  civil  rights  for  the 
security  of  the  remainder;  but  each  retained  his 
religious  freedom,  entire  and  untouched,  as  a  mat¬ 
ter  between  himself  and  his  God,  with  which  gov¬ 
ernment  could  not  interfere.  But,  even  if  this 
reason  had  not  existed,  it  would  have  been  diffi¬ 
cult,  if  not  impossible,  to  use  any  expression  on 
the  subject  which  would  have  given  general  satis¬ 
faction.  The  difference  between  the  various  sects 
of  Christians  is  such,  that,  while  all  have  much  in 
common,  there  are  many  points  of  variance :  so 
that  in  an  instrument  where  all  are  entitled  to 
equal  consideration  it  would  be  difficult  to  use 
terms  in  which  all  could  cordially  join.” 

“Besides,  the  whole  Constitution  was  a  com- 


278 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


y. 


promise,  and  it  was  foreseen  that  it  would  meet 
with  great  opposition  before  it  could  be  •  finally 
adopted.  It  was,  therefore,  important  to  restrict 
its  provisions  to  things  absolutely  necessary,  so  as 
to  give  as  little  room  as  possible  to  cavil.  More¬ 
over,  it  was  impossible  to  introduce  into  it  even  an 

* 

expression  of  gratitude  to  the  Almighty  for  the 
formation  of  the  present  government ;  for,  when 
the  Constitution  was  framed  and  submitted  to  the 
people,  it  was  entirely  uncertain  whether  it  would 
ever  be  ratified,  and  the  government  might,  there¬ 
fore,  never  be  established/5 

“The  prohibition  of  any  religious  test  for  of¬ 
fice  was  wise,  because  its  admission  would  lead  to 
hypocrisy  and  corruption.  The  purity  of  religion 
is  best  preserved  by  keeping  it  separate  from  gov¬ 
ernment  ;  and  the  surest  means  of  giving  to  it  its 
proper  influence  in  society  is  the  dissemination  of 
correct  principles  through  education.  The  ex¬ 
perience  of  this  country  has  proved  that  religion 
may  flourish  in  all  its  vigor  and  purity  without 
the  aid  of  a  national  establishment;  and  the  re¬ 
ligious  feeling  of  the  community  is  the  best  guar¬ 
antee  for  the  religious  administration  of  the  gov¬ 
ernment.55 

Taking  into  consideration  the  history  of  their 
conception,  the  character  of  the  people  concerned, 
the  times  and  circumstances  attending  their  pro¬ 
mulgation,  and  the  grand  results  achieved  by  their 
application,  a  careful  analysis  of  the  spirit  as  well 
as  the  letter  of  the  fundamental  laws  of  our  coun¬ 
try  gives  us  the  following  happy  results  as  to  the 
position  assumed  upon  the  important  subject  of  re¬ 
ligion  by  our  Constitution: 


§14. 


ANNOTATIONS. 


279 


1.  It  takes  account  of  the  fact  that  the  people 
of  the  United  States  are  a  religious  people;  and, 
by  implication,  it  has  regard  to  the  general  char¬ 
acter  of  the  prevailing  religion,  as  also  to  the  diver¬ 
sity  of  its  confessional  forms. 

2.  In  many  of  its  principles  and  laws  there 
are  unmistakable  evidences  that  the  people  by 
whom,  and  for  whom,  it  is  framed,  are  professors 
of  the  Christian  religion,  if  not  of  the  Protestant 
religion. 

3.  For  itself  and  for  the  government  as  such, 
it  makes  no  profession  of  religion,  not  even  the 
most  general;  nor  does  it  require  any  such  profes¬ 
sion  of  any  one  of  its  subjects,  be  his  station  private 
or  public. 

4.  It  secures  to  all  alike  the  full  enjoyment 
of  religious  freedom :  neither  itself  interferes  with 
the  faith  of  the  individual,  nor  does  it  allow  others 
to  do  so  where  such  interference  is  incompatible 
with  the  freedom  of  conscience  it  guarantees  to  all. 

5.  It  forbids  the  government  in  any  of  its 
functions  to  be  employed  as  an  instrument  for  the 
direct  propagation  of  any  particular  religion. 

6.  It  does  neither  bid  nor  forbid  the  general 
encouragement  of  religion  by  the  government  in  so 
far  as  this  can  be  done  without  a  violation  of  the 
rights  of  conscience  secured  to  the  individual  sub¬ 
jects. 

7.  In  no  respect  a  hindrance,  it  proves  itself 
a  friend  and  help  to  the  cause  of  religion  in  a 
thousand  ways  more  or  less  direct. 

Our  great  and  good  Master  tells  us  that  our 
Father  which  is  in  heaven  “maketh  His  sun  to 
rise  on  the  evil  and  on  the  good,  and  sendeth  rain 


280 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


y. 


on  the  just  and  on  the  unjust.”  Will  any  one  be 
so  foolish  as  to  maintain  that  this  action  of  the 
Father  and  this  teaching  of  the  Son  indicate  that 
God  cares  not  whether  men  be  evil  or  good,  just  or 
unjust?  that  if  in  this  particular  He  seem  to  make 
no  distinctions,  none  are  made  at  all?  that  the 
Holy  One  loves  and  favors  the  godly  no  more  than 
the  impious,  the  child  no  more  than  the  bastard? 
No,  indeed!  Likewise  when  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  taught  by  a  higher  than  earthly 
wisdom,  and  whether  all  believe  this  or  not,  secure 
to  themselves  the  inestimable  treasure  of  religious 
freedom,  they  do  not  thereby  mean  to  say  that 
they  care  not  whether  a  man  use  or  abuse  the 
treasure  thus  secured  to  him.  The  Constition  is  a 
political  document;  it  secures  to  the  subject  politi¬ 
cal  rights;  as  to  religion  it  can  properly  do  no¬ 
thing,  and  nothing  more  than  declare  it  a  matter 
beyond  its  jurisdiction  and  to  see  to  it  that  every 
one  of  its  subjects  be  left  free  and  undisturbed  in 
his  relation  to  his  God.  This  is  a  sphere  wherein 
God  alone  will  rule  and  legislate,  and  wherein  He 
will  admit  of  no  coercion  by  man  and  the  laws  of 
man.  In  looking  at  the  glorious  principles  of  our 
Magna  Charta,  we  find  that  we  have  many,  many 
things  for  which  we  ought  to  be  heartily  grateful 
to  Him  who  fashioneth  the  hearts  of  men  and  who 
holds  in  His  hands  the  destinies  of  nations;  but 
among  them  all  there  is  none  so  great  and  precious 
as  is  the  liberty  of  each  and  all  to  worship  God  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  dictates  of  conscience. 


§15. 


INCONSISTENCIES. 


281 


§15.  INCONSISTENCIES  OF  PRACTICES  WITH  PRIN¬ 
CIPLES,  APPARENT  AND  OTHERWISE. 

It  remains  for  us  to  investigate  how  certain 
particular  features,  in  part  of  the  National  and  in 
part  of  the  several  State  Constitutions,  accord  with 
the  general  principles  of  the  fundamental  law  of 
our  Government;  then  also,  in  what  measure  legis¬ 
lation  and  practice  are  in  keeping  with  the  spirit 
of  complete  religious  liberty.  There  are  many 
things  which  indicate  at  least  a  seeming  departure 
from  the  basis  assumed.  Negatively,  and  especi¬ 
ally  in  matters  of  distinctively  Christian  morals, 
we  have  laws  prohibiting  polygamy,  adultery,  im¬ 
moral  exhibitions,  blasphemy,  disturbances  of  re¬ 
ligious  exercises,  disregard  of  certain  religious  days, 
etc.  Positively  we  have  our  Sundays,  our  days  of 
humiliation  and  of  thanksgiving,  our  chaplains  in 
Congress  and  in  the  army,  the  administration  of 
oaths  in  the  name  of  the  Deity,  church-property  ex¬ 
empt  from  taxation,  clergymen  from  conscription, 
etc.  These  are  matters  .legally  ordered,  though 
mostly  by  State  and  not  by  National  legislation. 
The  question  arises,  on  what  grounds  are  such 
enactments  or  proclamations,  as  the  case  may  be, 
based?  Possibly,  an  answer  fully  satisfactory  can 
be  given  with  regard  to  each  of  the  things  enum¬ 
erated,  but  there  may  be  many  unable  to  furnish 
it. 

Were  we  to  inquire,  for  example,  why  have  we 
12* 


282 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


V. 


a  Sunday  by  the  law  of  the  land  in  which  we  live, 
we  venture  to  say  that  nine  answers  out  of  ten 
would  point  us  to  the  Decalogue.  In  other  words  : 
we  would  be  told  that,  whereas  God  has  instituted 
the  Sabbath,  our  Government  as  a  matter  of  course 
must  command  its  observance.  Yet  no  answer 
made  could  be  more  fallacious,  and,  in  its  logical 
workings,  more  disastrous  to  our  theory  of  govern¬ 
ment.  And  here  we  do  not  refer  to  the  question 
whether  or  not  the  divine  law  of  the  Sabbath  is  of 
universal  application, — a  matter  on  which  Chris¬ 
tians  themselves  are  divided — ,  but  to  the  utterly 
false  political  principle  on  which  the  answer  is 
based,  to  wit :  that  whatever  God  has  forbidden  or 
bidden  must  also  for  that  very  reason  be  forbidden 
or  bidden  by  the  law  of  the  land.  On  such 
grounds  every  biblical  injunction  and  precept 
would  have  to  be  embodied,  as  an  integral  part 
thereof,  in  our  legal  code ;  and  whither  such  a  pro¬ 
cedure  would  lead  us,  it  is  not  difficult  to  foresee. 
The  distinction  between  politics  and  religion,  the 
State  and  the  Church,  would  thus  be  completely 
wiped  out,  and  there  would  ensue  a  condition  of 
affairs  more  woful  than  the  world  has  ever  known. 
In  our  day,  and  in  our  land  especially,  because 
Church  and  State  are  separate,  no  civil  statute  can 
be  based  directly  upon  purely  religious  grounds. 
The  true  rationale ,  therefore,  of  laws  such  as  have 
a  religious  significance,  and  as  we  have  named 
above,  must  be  sought  elsewhere. 

It  is  not  proposed  here  to  discuss  every  law 
and  custom  which  seem  to  stand  in  direct  connec¬ 
tion  with  Christianity  and  possibly  in  conflict 


15. 


INCONSISTENCIES. 


283 


with  our  system  of  government.  From  among 
them  we  select  three,  each  differing  more  or  less 
from  the  others;  and  these  will  serve  the  purpose 
of  bringing  out  all  those  points  which  may  be 
necessary  to  understand  such  as  are  here  passed 
by.  The  law  of  the  observance  of  Sunday,  the  law 
punishing  blasphemy,  and  the  law  creating  and 
regulating  the  office  of  chaplains  to  the  Govern¬ 
ment — these  are  the  specimen  statutes  now  to  be 
reviewed  with  a  special  reference  to  the  question 
whether  they  are  in  full  harmony  with  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  a  perfect  religious  freedom  and  with  a 
complete  legal  separation  of  State  and  Church. 

Throughout  this  discussion  we  hold  fast  chiefly 
to  two  principles,  and  which  we  derive  from  the 
analysis  given  towards  the  close  of  the  preceding 
section,  first:  that,  according  to  the  spirit  of  our 
Constitution  and  of  good  government,  it  is  unlaw¬ 
ful  to  legislate  in  positive  support  of  any  religion 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  in  direct  opposition  to  it ; 
secondly:  that,  according  to  the  letter  of  our  Con¬ 
stitution,  our  government  may  indirectly  help  or 
hinder  the  cause  of  religion  in  so  far  as  that  can  be 
done  without  violating  the  rights  of  individual 
consciences  and  abridging  the  liberty  secured  to 
them. 

Whatever  may  be  its  worth,  the  fact  is  that  re¬ 
ligion  has  a  strong  hold  upon  the  hearts  and  affec¬ 
tions  of  our  people.  Equally  true  is  it  that  the 
prevailing  religion  is,  fundamentally  at  least,  the 
Christian.  As  these  are  facts  which  were  kept 
constantly  in  view  when  the  Constitution  was 
framed,  so  must  they  be  in  order  properly  to  inter- 


284 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


V. 


pret  it  and  rightly  to  build  on  it  in  all  subsequent 
legislation.  Be  the  views  a  legislator  personally 
entertains  concerning  the  religion  of  the  people 
whatever  they  may,  he  must  take  it  into  account 
— not  for  a  moment  must  he  forget,  when  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  religion  is  touched,  that  dearer  to  the  hearts 
of  the  people  than  their  country  and  their  coun¬ 
try's  laws  are  to  them  their  God  and  their  Master’s 
Word.  This  must  teach  him  that  to  legislate 
against  God  and  His  commands  will  result  in  dis¬ 
order  and  revolution — the  very  opposite  of  the  ob¬ 
ject  which  a  law  must  accomplish. 

But  more  than  that:  the  indissoluble  bond 
between  the  moral  and  religious  sentiment  and  of 
good  government  must  not.be  overlooked.  Every 
law  promulgated  in  violation  of  a  people’s  religion 
is  a  blow  directed  at  the  very  foundation  of  gov¬ 
ernment  itself;  on  the  other  hand  every  law  which 
is  in  accord  with  the  religion  of  those  for  whom  it 
is  intended  and  which  offers  them  an  opportunity 
to  practice  their  religion,  and  yet  does  not  coerce 
it,  is  calculated  to  strengthen  the  building  of  State. 
Insignificant  and  unimportant  as  in  themselves 
they  may  appear,  the  best  and  most  serviceable 
laws  of  a  country  are  those  which,  though  they  are 
not  directly  based  on  divine  precepts,  yet  posi¬ 
tively  invite  the  exercise  of  the  citizen’s  moral  and 
religious  powers.  Then  also  is  it  a  mistake  to 
suppose  that  a  complete  separation  between  the 
State  and  the  Church  implies  an  utter  disregard  of 
religion  by  the  former.  Were  such  the  case,  then 
would  their  separation  be  a  wrong  in  itself;  and 
had  our  Government  ever  acted  on  such  erroneous 


15. 


INCONSISTENCIES. 


285 


supposition,  then  were  it  long  ago  a  thing  of  the 
past.  The  truths  which  we  have  thus  briefly  re¬ 
asserted  are  all  in  full  accord  with  the  American 
idea,  form,  law,  and  practice,  of  government;  and 
if  the  institution  of  Sunday,  the  resentment  of 
blasphemy  and  the  appointment  of  chaplains  are 
shown  to  be  in  harmony  with  them,  then  are  they 
also  in  full  harmony  with  our  most  sacred  prin¬ 
ciple  of  government,  i.  e.,  religious  liberty,  the  in¬ 
alienable  right  of  man. 

Sunday ,  according  to  Art.  I.  sec.  7  of  the  Fed¬ 
eral  Constitution,  is  regarded  as  a  dies  non .  Offi¬ 
cially,  the  day  is  not  reckoned;  the  departments  of 
State  are  closed,  business  is  suspended,  and  pro¬ 
vision  is  made  for  its  observance  by  the  army  and 
navy.  In  most,  if  not  in  all,  of  the  several  States 
of  the  Union,  the  manner  of  its  observance  is  to 
some  extent  regulated  by  law.  Whether  or  not  to 
institute  Sunday,  could  not  be  a  question  with  the 
authors  of  our  Constitution ;  they  found  it  already 
established  and  observed  by  the  people,  and  accord¬ 
ingly  they  recognized  and  respected  it.  For  this 
there  must  have  been  good  reason,  since  it  must 
have  been  foreseen  that  the  fact  of  one  dies  non  out 
of  every  seven  would  be  attended  by  serious  incon¬ 
veniences  and,  under  certain  circumstances,  might 
possibly  produce  deplorable  results.  Then,  too,  the 
reasons  assigned  could  not  have  been  purely  re¬ 
ligious,  as  we  have  already  had  occasion  to  point 
out;  they  must  have  been  political  in  their  nature. 
What,  in  the  minds  of  our  fathers  when  they  de¬ 
vised  the  Constitution,  these  were  on  the  point 
under  consideration,  we  are  unable  to  say ;  we  can 


286 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


V. 


only  point  out  such  reasons  as  might  have  been 
given  had  any  been  asked  for. 

Sunday  has  a  double  signification,  a  religious 
and  a  civil ;  it  is  a  day  of  worship  and  a  day  of  rest 
and  recreation.  In  either  of  its  aspects,  however, 
its  legal  sanction  will  stand  the  test  of  the  strictest 
civil  jurisprudence.  We  here  revert  to  the  princi¬ 
ple  that  no  laws  dare  be  enacted  which  stand  in 
opposition  to  the  acknowledged  will  of  God  and  the 
faith  of  the  general  body  of  the  people,  because  all 
such  laws  are  subversive  of  government.  Among 
these  we  would  have  to  class  any  law  or  legislation 
whereby  the  religious  observance  of  Sunday  were 
rendered  practically  impossible  or  even  were  wholly 
abolished.  Were  our  Government  to  deprive  the 
people  of  this  day,  its  days  would  soon  be  num¬ 
bered  ;  and  this  for  various  reasons.  Many  of  our 
people  believe  that  Sunday  is  divinely  instituted; 
others  require  its  observance  because  the  interests 
of  religion  imperatively  demand  it ;  add  to  these  all 
those  who  respect  it  because  of  its  beneficent  influ¬ 
ence  upon  the  moral  sentiment,  and  you  have  be¬ 
fore  you  a  community  of  men  so  vast  in  number, 
formidable  in  strength  and  excellent  in  character^ 
that  not  to  hear  its  voice  and  heed  its  will  were  the 
hight  of  political  folly.  Whether  the  religious  be¬ 
lief  which  leads  the  great  majority  of  the  people  to 
demand  the  legal  sanction  of  Sunday  be  well 
founded  or  not,  or  whether  their  motives  be  pure 
or  not — these  are  points  on  which  it  is  not  the 
business  of  the  law  and  the  law-makers  to  decide. 
The  mere  fact  that  the  general  body  of  the  people 
wants  a  day  of  worship  is  enough  to  give  a  solid 


15. 


INCONSISTENCIES. 


287 


foundation  to  the  law  which  respects  the  will  so 
expressed.  Especially  must  the  popular  will  be 
heeded  in  this  matter  because  of  its  religious  na¬ 
ture,  on  the  ground  that  religion  is  the  source  and 
strength  of  all  true  morality — of  that  morality  with¬ 
out  which  all  law  and  order  are  absolute  impossi¬ 
bilities.  This  consideration  likewise  forbids  the 
abolition  of  the  day  and  the  denial  of  protection  to 
those  who  desire  to  keep  it  holy. 

The  idea  that  this  matter  might  be  wholly 
passed  by  in  legislation  and  left  to  the  people  for 
adjustment,  is  entirely  impracticable.  Let  us  point 
out  but  one  difficulty  of  the  many  which  would 
present  themselves.  On  the  subject  under  consid¬ 
eration  the  people  of  the  United  States  may  be  said 
to  be  divided  into  three  classes.  The  one,  compara¬ 
tively  small,  wants  no  rest-day  of  any  kind  ;  the 
Jews,  as  the  other,  want  the  seventh  day  of  the 
week ;  while  the  third,  the  community  generally, 
holds  to  the  first  day.  In  the  absence  now  of  all  * 
laws  and  regulations,  a  wealthy  manufacturer,  say, 
but  an  enemy  to  the  Christian’s  Sunday,  would  no 
doubt  offer  employment  only  on  the  alternative 
either  to  labor  seven  days  in  the  week  or  not  at  all, 
and  thus  induce  many  men  to  violate  their  con¬ 
sciences  and  to  neglect  their  most  holy  interests,  or 
to  do  without  all  employment  offered  on  such  terms. 
The  dissatisfaction,  the  disorder  and  the  manifold 
injuries  resulting  from  such  a  state  of  affairs  can 
readily  be  imagined.  And  yet  this  is  but  one  view 
of  the  policy  of  no-action.  Besides,  the  Govern¬ 
ment  itself  employs  thousands  of  men,  and  among 
these  all  classes  are  represented;  and  it  must  an- 


288 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


y. 


swer  the  question  whether  these  shall  work  without 
regard  to  a  day  of  rest  or  not,  and  whether  their 
desire  to  sanctify  a  stated  day  unto  the  Lord  shall 
be  granted  or  not.  Its  decision  is  well  known — the 
Christian  Sunday  has  been  declared  a  dies  non. 

When  now  we  regard  Sunday  merely  as  a  day 
of  rest  and  recreation,  entirely  different  reasons  for 
its  appointment  can  be  set  forth.  These  are  quite 
numerous  and  can  no  more  than  be  mentioned  here. 
To  discuss  the  various  advantages  of  a  regularly 
recurring  day  of  rest,  many  pages  would  be  neces¬ 
sary.  Physically,  man  stands  in  need  of  the  repose 
which  such  a  day  offers  him ;  it  promotes  cleanli¬ 
ness  in  the  home,  and  of  person  as  well ;  it  offers 
opportunities  for  innocent  enjoyments  and  whole¬ 
some  exercise,  and  in  many  other  ways  proves 
itself  conducive  to  good  health.  Intellectually, 
man  may  be  improved  by  it  in  consequence  of  its 
inducements  to  private  study  and  attendance  on 
public  instruction.  Socially,  think  of  the  oppor¬ 
tunities  it  offers  for  domestic  fellowship  and  friendly 
intercourse.  We  are  here  reminded  of  the  thou¬ 
sands  of  husbands  and  fathers  who,  compelled  to 
toil  from  early  morning  till  late  at  night,  were  it 
not  for  Sunday,  would  rarely  enjoy  the  keen  pleas¬ 
ure  of  converse  with  those  to  whom  their  hearts 
and  lives  are  most  dearly  devoted.  Lastly  also  we 
would  here  name  its  business  advantages :  a  cheer¬ 
ful  spirit,  a  well-rested  body,  improved  health — all 
blessings  acquired  on  Sunday  by  many  workmen — 
are  followed  by  diligent  application,  skillful  execu¬ 
tion  and  hence  by  increased  production  and  greater 
prosperity  generally.  Indeed,  that  government 


15. 


INCONSISTENCIES. 


289 


which  cannot  see  the  great  and  varied  advantages 
derived  from  a  weekly  holiday  of  the  people,  must 
be  stone-blind.  No,  we  cannot  afford  to  do  without 
it :  both  our  personal  and  public  welfare  demand 
its  observance. 

How  the  day  is  to  be  kept  and  best  enjoyed, 
each  one  is  left  free  to  decide  for  himself,  subject 
however  to  some  legal  restrictions  determined  by 
the  States.  No  law  can  compel  any  one  to  observe 
it  as  a  day  of  worship;  on  the  other  hand,  every 
one  who  desires  to  keep  it  holy,  is  entitled  to  pro¬ 
tection  in  its  sanctification.  Hence  our  laws  gener¬ 
ally  forbid  all  entertainments,  exhibitions,  reviews, 
and  other  things  calculated  to  interfere  with  and 
disturb  the  religious  observance  of  our  Sunday. 

66  As  a  civil  and  political  institution,”  says  Jus¬ 
tice  Allen,  “the  establishment  and  regulation  of  a 
Sabbath  is  within  the  just  power  of  the  civil  Gov¬ 
ernment.  Older  than  our  Government,  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution  did  not  abolish,  alter,  or  weaken 
its  sanction,  but  recognized  it,  as  they  might  other¬ 
wise  have  established  it.  It  is  a  law  of  our  nature 
that  one  day  in  seven  should  be  observed  as  a  time 
of  relaxation,  and  experience  proves  a  day  of  weekly 
rest  to  be  ‘of  admirable  service  to  a  State,  consid¬ 
ered  merely  as  a  civil  institution.’  (4  Bl.  Com.  63). 
Physical  laws  accord  with  the  Decalogue.  All  in¬ 
terests  require  national  uniformity  in  the  day  ob¬ 
served,  and  that  its  observance  should  be  so  far 
compulsory  as  to  protect  those  who  desire  and  are 
entitled  to  the  day.  .  .  .  Nor  is  it  a  violation  of 
the  rights  of  conscience  of  any  that  the  Sabbath  of 
the  people,  immemorially  enjoyed,  sanctioned  by 
IB 


290 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


V. 


common  law,  and  recognized  in  the  Constitution, 
should  be  respected  and  protected  by  the  law-making 

power .  Offenses  against  it”  (i.  e.  an  act  to 

regulate  the  observance  of  Sunday)  “  are  punish¬ 
able  not  as  sins  against  God,  but  as  injurious  to 
society.  .  .  .”  Lindenmuller  vs.  the  People.  Sup. 
Court,  N.  York/  1861.) 

Common  law,  the  Federal  and  the  State  Con¬ 
stitutions,  State  and  municipal  legislation  through¬ 
out  the  Union,  all  respect  the  day  ;  and,  as  we  are  as¬ 
sured  by  the  eminent  authority  just  quoted,  all  the 
courts  of  the  land — California  excepted — have  ren¬ 
dered  their  decisions  accordingly.  Certain  it  is 
that,  while  a  disregard  of  Sunday  as  a  day  of  wor¬ 
ship  and  its  abolition  by  law  would  be  in  flat  con¬ 
tradiction  to  the  principles  of  religious  liberty  ;  the 
sanction  of  it,  without  prescribing  its  religious  ob¬ 
servance,  is  not  only  in  full  accord  with  the  idea  of 
liberty,  and  the  rights  of  conscience  in  particular, 
but  is  even  demanded  by  them.  Not  because  God 
has  so  commanded  it  have  we  a  legal  holy-day,  but 
because  it  is  our  right  and  reasonable  wTill  to  have 
it ;  and  this  its  true  civil  foundation  is  strength¬ 
ened  by  the  great  civil  worth  of  its  proper  observ¬ 
ance. 

Blasphemy ,  according  to  Blackstone,  is  denying 
the  being  and  providence  of  God,  contumelious  re¬ 
proaches  of  our  Savior  Christ,  and  profane  scoffing 
at  the  Holy  Scripture,  or  exposing  it  to  contempt 
and  ridicule.  This  definition*  scripturally  and  the¬ 
ologically  correct  as  it  may  be,  is  too  comprehen¬ 
sive  and  in  part  too  indefinite  to  be  applicable  in 
civil  jurisprudence.  Within  the  sphere  of  jurispru- 


15. 


INCONSISTENCIES. 


291 


dence  the  definition  must  evidently  exclude  much 
which  in  theology  would  be  termed  blasphemy. 
Much  more  serviceable  is  the  definition  which  de¬ 
clares  it  to  be  the  act  of  wantonly  uttering  or  pub¬ 
lishing  words  which  cast  contumelious  reproach  or 
profane  ridicule  upon  any  person  of  the  Holy  Trin¬ 
ity,  or  upon  the  Deity  of  Christianity.  Thus  de¬ 
fined,  blasphemy  is  an  offence  punishable  at  com¬ 
mon  law,  and  by  statute  in  many  of  the  States  of  the 
Union.  Infidelity,  atheism,  and  religious  beliefs  op¬ 
posed  to  Christianity,  are  not  punishable ;  neither 
is  their  temperate  profession  and  defense.  This  it 
will  be  well  to  note.  The  law  forbids  no  one  the 
right  of  forming  an  opinion  wholly  adverse  even 
to  the  Christian’s  belief  in  God,  nor  of  frankly  ex¬ 
pressing  his  objections  to  Christianity ;  but  it  will 
not  allow  him  openly  and  maliciously  to  ridicule 
and  revile  the  Christian’s  God,  his  faith  and  his 
Bible.  Such  being  the  case,  are  the  laws  directed 
against  blasphemy,  within  these  limits,  compatible 
with  the  freedom  of  conscience  and  with  the  enjoy¬ 
ment  of  religious  liberty  accorded  to  every  indi¬ 
vidual  by  the  Constitution  as  a  matter  of  natural 
right  ? 

Beyond  all  doubt  there  are  good  grounds  for 
legislating  against  blasphemy,  as  defined.  Nega¬ 
tively,  we  take  it  as  a  matter  of  course  that  no  one 
is  constrained  by  conscience  either  to  deride  or  to 
curse  a  Being  in  whose  very  existence  he  professes 
not  to  believe.  True,  the  conscience  of  some  people 
must  be  a  queer  thing,  if  there  be  any  sincerity  in 
their  appeal  to  it ;  but  a  “conscience  ”  which  urges 
a  man  to  blaspheme,  is  a  thing  thus  far  wholly  un¬ 
known  to  our  jurisprudence;  it  can  therefore  not 


292 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


V. 


expect  that  any  attention  be  paid  to  it.  We  con¬ 
clude,  that  the  possibility  even  of  detracting  from 
the  rights  of  conscience  by  a  law  prohibiting  blas¬ 
phemy  is  wholly  out  of  the  question.  Rather  do 
the  rights  of  conscience  demand  the  enactment  of 
such  laws  and  their  rigid  enforcement.  We  'take  it 
as  a  matter  of  course,  also,  that,  in  society  with  his 
fellows,  a  man  has  not  the  liberty  to  say  what  he 
pleases  and  to  speak  as  he  pleases.  In  other  words : 
no  appeal  can  be  here  taken  to  freedom  of  speech 
also  in  matters  pertaining  to  religion.  Even  were 
an  absolute  freedom  of  speech  a  personal  right,  it  is 
not  a  right  without  restrictions  within  that  sphere 
of  law  which  regulates  man’s  relation  to  man.  In 
this,  in  order  to  secure  and  preserve  the  true  virtue 
and  good  of  our  common  rights  and  liberties,  we 
must  deny  and  restrain  the  pleasure  of  our  will  in 
many  things;  here  it  is  entirely  useless,  in  excuse  of 
our  extravagance,  wantonness,  licentiousness,  etc., 
to  appeal  to  our  personal  rights,  real  or  imaginary. 
But  blasphemy,  in  the  light  of  liberty,  is  an  extrav¬ 
agance  and  an  abuse,  and  can  therefore  be  declared 
criminal  without  the  least  infringement  of  human 
rights  and  of  true  liberty. 

But  there  are  positive  reasons  for  the  law  under 
consideration.  Our  laws  declare  blasphemy  a  cul¬ 
pable  offence,  not  because  it  is  a  sin  against  God, 
nor  because  it  is  an  act  wholly  useless  and  vain 
every  way  you  look  at  it,  but  because  it  is  a  direct 
injury  to  society.  It  is  a  malicious  and  violent  at¬ 
tack  upon  things  most  sacred  and  dear  to  the  hearts 
of  the  great  mass  of  our  people ;  as  it  is  an  expres¬ 
sion,  so  is  it  creative,  of  ill  will,  and  hence  it  is  calcu- 


§15. 


INCONSISTENCIES. 


293 


lated  to  disturb  the  public  tranquility;  it  is  de¬ 
structive  of  the  moral  sentiment,  and  therefore 
tends  to  undermine  the  foundations  of  good  govern¬ 
ment. 

If  you,  my  neighbor,  do  not  like  the  style  of 
my  house,  you  are  fully  entitled  to  your  distaste ; 
you  are  free  to  express  your  dislike ;  you  may  rea¬ 
son  with  me  about  it  and  try  to  get  me  to  look  at  it 
and  judge  of  it  as  you  do;  if  you  can,  you  may  in¬ 
duce  me  to  remodel  or  wholly  to  rebuild  it,  agreea¬ 
bly  to  your  taste ;  or,  failing  in  this,  in  order  to  rid 
yourself  of  the  eye-sore,  you  may,  as  a  last  resort, 
buy  it  and  then  demolish  it  or  do  wTith  it  what  you 
please.  Thus  far,  all  your  efforts  to  accomplish  a 
certain  end,  even  though  they  may  annoy  me  very 
much,  are  perfectly  lawful ;  but  should  you  begin 
to  throw  mud  or  stones  at  my  house,  or  set  fire  to 
it,  or  make  it  worthless  by  means  of  some  nuisance, 
or  otherwise  injure  it,  then  would  I  expect  the  law 
to  protect  me  against  all  such  criminal  violence. 
But  now,  more  highly  than  all  his  earthly  treasures 
does  the  Christian  esteem  his  God  and  prize  his 
Bible  and  his  faith  ;  and  precious  as  these  things 
are  to  me,  to  you  they  may  be  more  obnoxious  than 
we  have  supposed  my  house  to  be  distasteful.  If 
such  be  the  case,  within  the  sphere  of  the  law  you 
are  at  liberty  to  do  many  things  indeed  to  deprive 
me  of  my  treasures,  free  and  decent  discussion  of 
religion  being  fully  in  order ;  but  against  the  use  of 
all  abusive  and  scurrilous  language  respecting  my 
God,  my  Bible  and  my  faith,  I  am  entitled  to  pro¬ 
tection.  Such  is  my  right ;  and  when  blasphemy 
is  declared  by  lawT  an  offense  and  punishable  as  a 


294 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


V. 


misdemeanor,  its  prime  object  is  to  protect  me  in 
my  right  and  to  preserve  the  peace. 

“  It  has  long  been  firmly  settled  that  blas¬ 
phemy  against  the  Deity  generally,  or  an  attack  on 
the  Christian  religion  indirectly,  for  the  purpose  of 
exposing  its  doctrines  to  ridicule  and  contempt,  is 
indictable  and  punishable  as  a  temporal  offence. 
The  principles  and  actual  decisions  are  that  the 
publications,  whether  written  or  oral,  must  be  ma¬ 
licious,  and  designed  for  that  end  and  purpose.  .  .  . 
A  malicious  and  mischievous  intention  is,  in  such 
a  case,  the  broad  boundary  between  right  and 
wrong,  and  that  it  is  to  be  collected  from  the  offen¬ 
sive  levity,  scurrilous  and  opprobrious  language, 
and  other  circumstances,  whether  the  act  of'  the 

party  was  malicious .  No  society  can  tolerate 

a  wilful  and  despiteful  attempt  to  subvert  its  re¬ 
ligion  any  more  than  it  would  to  break  down  its 
laws .  Without  these  restraints  no  govern¬ 

ment  could  long  exist.  It  is  liberty  run  mad  to 
declaim  against  the  punishment  of  these  offences, 
or  to  assert  that  their  punishment  is  hostile  to  the 
spirit  and  genius  of  our  Government.  They  are  far 
from  being  the  friends  to  liberty  who  support  this 
doctrine;  and  the  promulgation  of  such  opinions, 
and  the  general  receipt  of  them  among  the  people, 
would  be  the  sure  forerunner  of  anarchy,  and, 

finally,  of  despotism .  While  our  own  free 

Constitution  secures  liberty  of  conscience  and  free¬ 
dom  of  religious  worship  to  all,  it  is  not  necessary 
to  maintain  that  any  man  should  have  the  right 
publicly  to  vilify  the  religion  of  his  neighbors  and 
of  the  country.  These  two  privileges  are  directly 


15. 


INCONSISTENCIES. 


295 


opposed.  It  is  an  open,  public  vilification  of  the 
religion  of  the  country  that  is  punished,  not  to 
force  conscience  by  punishment  but  to  preserve  the 
peace  of  the  country  by  an  outward  respect  to  the 
religion  of  the  country,  and  not  as  a  restraint  upon 
the  liberty  of  the  conscience ;  but  licentiousness, 
endangering  the  public  peace,  when  tending  to 
corrupt  society,  is  considered  as  a  breach  of  the 
peace,  and  punishable  by  indictment.  Every  im¬ 
moral  act  is  not  indictable ;  but  when  it  is  de¬ 
structive  of  morality  generally  it  is,  because  it 
weakens  the  bonds  by  which  society  is  held  to¬ 
gether,  and  government  is  nothing  more  than  pub¬ 
lic  order.  ...  If,  from  a  regard  to  decency  and  the 
good  order  of  society,  profane  swearing,  breach  of 
the  Sabbath,  and  blasphemy,  are  punishable  by 
civil  magistrates,  these  are  not  punished  as  sins  or 
offences  against  God,  but  as  crimes  injurious  to,  and 
having  a  malignant  influence  on,  society  ;  for  it  is 
certain  that  by  these  practices  no  one  pretends  to 
prove  any  supposed  truths,  detect  any  supposed 
error,  or  advance  any  sentiment  whatever. ”  (De¬ 
cision  of  S.  Court  of  Penn,  in  1824.) 

We  close  with  an  extract  from  an  opinion  given 
on  this  subject  by  Chief  Justice  Kent  in  1811 : 
“  The  authorities  show  that  blasphemy  against 
God,  and  contumelious  reproaches  and  profane  rid¬ 
icule  of  Christ  or  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  are 
equally  treated  as  blasphemy,  are  offences  punish¬ 
able  at  common  law  ....  because  they  tend  to 
corrupt  the  morals  of  the  people  and  to  destroy 
good  order.  Such  offences  have  always  been  con¬ 
sidered  independent  of  any  religious  establishment 


296 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


y. 


or  the  right  of  the  Church.  There  is  nothing  in 
our  manners  and  institutions  which  has  prevented 
the  application  or  the  necessity  of  the  common  law. 
We  stand  equally  in  need  now  as  formerly  of  all 
that  moral  discipline  and  of  those  principles  of 
virtue  which  help  to  bind  society  together.  The 
people  ....  profess  the  general  doctrines  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  as  the  rule  of  their  faith  and  practice;  and 
to  scandalize  the  Author  of  these  doctrines  is  not 
only  in  a  religious  point  of  view  extremely  im¬ 
pious,  but  even  in  respect  to  the  obligations  due  to 
society,  is  a  gross  violation  of  decency  and  good 
order.  Nothing  could  be  more  offensive  to  the  vir¬ 
tuous  part  of  the  community,  or  more  injurious  to 
the  tender  morals  of  the  young,  than  to  declare 
such  profanity  lawful.  It  would  go  to  confound 
all  distinction  between  things  sacred  and  profane. 

.  .  .  .  The  very  idea  of  jurisprudence,  with  the 
ancient  lawgivers  and  philosophers,  embraced  the 
religion  of  the  country.”  (Supreme  Court  of  New 
York,  etc.) 

The  Appointment  of  Chaplains.  At  the  meeting 
of  the  first  Congress  following  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution  in  1789,  a  committee  was  appointed 
to  confer  with  a  committee  of  the  House  u  on  rules 
and  the  appointment  of  chaplains.”  This  resulted 
in  the  engagement  of  two  chaplains,  one  by  each 
House ;  hence  the  custom,  continued  till  now,  of 
chaplains  to  our  national  legislature.  Likewise, 
chaplains  to  our  navy  and  army  have  been  ap¬ 
pointed  from  the  date  of  their  organizations,  as 
also  to  West  Point,  the  military  school  of  our 
nation. 


15. 


INCONSISTENCIES. 


297 


Later  in  the  history  of  our  Government,  Con¬ 
gress  has  been  petitioned  at  different  times  to 
abolish  the  office  of  chaplain  on  the  grounds,  as 
asserted  by  the  petitioners,  of  its  unconstitution¬ 
ality.  What  the  motives  of  the  petitioners  were, 
whether  friendly  or  inimical  to  religion,  we  are  not 
able  to  say,  not  knowing  the  character  of  the  par¬ 
ties  nor  being  acquainted  with  the  text  of  their 
memorial.  In  answer  to  one  of  these  papers,  Mr. 
Meacham  from  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary 
made  a  very  lengthy  report  to  the  House  in  March, 
1854.  To  the  Senate,  Mr.  Badger  reported  on  the 
same  subject  in  January,  1853.  From  these  re¬ 
ports,  respectively  adopted  by  both  branches  of 
the  National  Legislature,  it  is  evident  that  there 
can  be  little  doubt  about  the  constitutionality  of 
the  office,  as  far  as  the  letter  of  our  great  instru¬ 
ment  of  State  is  concerned.  In  the  light  of  its 
spirit,  however,  the  point  to  be  made  is  not  so  clear 
and  satisfactory.  For  ourselves  we  frankly  confess 
our  inability  to  reconcile  the  office  in  question  with 
the  principles  of  the  rights  of  conscience  and  of 
religious  freedom,  which  we  claim  in  their  fulness 
and  perfection  to  be  fundamental  in  our  system  of 
law.  Our  difficulty  here  arises  not  from  any  objec¬ 
tions  which  might  be  urged  against  it  even  from  a 
strictly  religious  point  of  view,  such  as  the  partial 
suppression  of  the  truth  on  the  part  of  the  minister 
officiating,  and  syncretism  on  the  part  of  the  per¬ 
sons  hearing.  These,  of  course,  are  matters  en¬ 
tirely  foreign  to  civil  jurisprudence.  But  there 
are  two  elements  in  the  appointment  of  chaplains, 
and  in  the  instructions  attending  it,  which  are 
wholly  extraneous  to  and  contradict  our  funda- 


298 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


V. 


mental  idea  of  government  on  the  subject  which 
they  affect.  The  one  is,  religious  coercion ;  the 
other,  the  use  of  public  funds  for  religious  pur¬ 
poses.  Unless  the  law  has  been  changed,  “  the 
commanders  of  all  ships  and  vessels  in  the  navy,” 
for  example,  are  enjoined  to  “cause  all,  or  as  many 
of  the  ship's  company  as  can  be  spared  from  duty, 
to  attend  every  performance  of  the  worship  of 
Almighty  God.”  Possibly,  now,  no  compulsion  is 
intended  nor  practiced  wherever  such  chaplains 
may  have  been  stationed  by  the  Government :  if 
so,  the  first  objection  would  fall  away.  Though  on 
this  point  we  are  unable  to  give  certain  informa¬ 
tion,  on  the  second  we  labor  under  no  such  disad¬ 
vantage.  Both  of  the  committees  referred  to  above 
have  grappled  with  this  objection;  but,  in  our 
humble  opinion,  they  have  failed  to  conquer  though 
they  were  declared  the  victors  by  the  bodies  which 
had  commissioned  them. 

“It  is  objected,”  says  Mr.  Meacham,”  that  we 
pay  money  from  the  treasury  for  this  office.  That 
is  certainly  true;  and  equally  true  in  regard  to 
the  sergeant-at-arms  and  door-keeper,  who,  with 
the  chaplain,  are  appointed  under  the  general  au¬ 
thority  to  organize  the  house.  Judge  Thompson, 
chairman  of  this  committee  in  the  Thirty-First 
Congress,  in  a  very  able  report  on  this  subject, 
said,  that  if  the  cost  of  chaplains  to  Congress  were 
equally  divided  among  the  people,  it  would  not  be 
annually  more  than  the  two  hundreth  part  of  one 
cent  to  each  person.  That  being  true,  a  man  who 
lives  under  the  protection  of  this  Government  and 
pays  taxes  for  fifty  years  will  have  to  lay  aside 


INCONSISTENCIES. 


299 


from  his  hard  earnings  two  and  a  half  mills  during 
his  half-century  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  chap¬ 
lains  to  Congress!  This  is  the  weight  of  pecuniary 
burden  which  the  committee  are  called  to  lift  from 
off  the  neck  of  the  people.”  This  is  all  the  gentle¬ 
man  has  to  say  in  explanation  and  justification  of 
the  point  at  issue ;  in  reality  he  says  nothing  at 
all,  but  wholly  evades  the  gist  of  the  matter  before 
him.  Evidently  the  complaint  is  not  that  the  tax 
levied  is  a  pecuniary  burden,  but  that  the  funds 
are  in  part  misappropriated,  and  that  too  in  a  mat¬ 
ter  affecting  the  consciences  of  men.  The  question 
to  be  decided  is,  whether  the  Government,  in  har¬ 
mony  with  fundamental  law,  has  a  right  to  em¬ 
ploy  men  to  minister  in  affairs  religious  and  to 
use  the  money  of  the  people  for  that  purpose.  On 
this  point  the  gentleman  utterly  fails  to  throw  any 
light.  It  can  be  readily  seen  that  if  Congress  has 
the  right  to  expend  one  dollar  from  the  public 
treasury  for  religious  purposes,  it  has  the  right  to 
so  appropriate  millions — the  principle  being  the 
same  in  all  cases.  Surrender  this,  and  the  rights 
of  conscience  are  no  longer  secure  and  may  at  any 
time  be  trampled  upon  with  impunity. 

Mr.  Badger  would  meet  the  objection  as  fol¬ 
lows :  “Let  it  be  seen,  then,  to  what  this  objection 
leads.  If  carried  out  to  its  fair  results,  it  will 
equally  apply  to  many  other  accommodations  fur¬ 
nished  to  members  of  Congress  at  the  public  ex¬ 
pense.  We  have  messengers  who  attend  to  our 
private  business,  take  checks  to  the  bank  for  us, 
receive  the  money,  or  procure  bank  drafts,  and  dis¬ 
charge  various  other  offices  for  our  personal  ease 


300 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


v. 


and  benefit,  unconnected  with  the  despatch  of  any 
public  function.  Why  might  it  not  be  said  that 
members,  if  they  wish  to  have  these  services  per¬ 
formed  in  their  behalf,  should  employ  and  pay 
their  own  agents?  Members  of  Congress  come  here 
to  attend  upon  the  business  of  the  public.  Many 
of  them  are  professed  members  of  religious  socie¬ 
ties;  more  are  men  of  religious  sentiment;  and 
these  desire  not  only  to  have  the  blessing  of  God 
invoked  upon  them  in  their  legislative  capacities, 
but  to  attend  the  public  worship  of  God.  But  how 
are  all  to  be  accommodated  in  the  churches  of  the 
city?  And  of  those  who  belong  to  either  House  of 
Congress  some  have  not  the  means  to  procure  such 
accommodations  for  themselves.  Where,  then,  is 
the  impropriety  of  having  an  officer  to  discharge 
these  duties  ?  And  how  is  it  more  a  subject  of  just 
complaint  than  to  have  officers  who  attend  to  the 
private  secular  business  of  the  members?  ” 

Such  is,  in  full,  Mr.  Badger’s  answer,  or  rather 
counter-question,  to  the  point  of  complaint.  It 
will  be  noticed  that,  what  is  incidentally  referred 
to  by  Mr.  Meacham,  is  here  made  to  serve  as  an 
argument;  namely,  that  the  office  of  a  chaplain  is 
to  be  viewed  as  a  mere  accommodation  like  that  of 
a  page,  a  sergeant-at-arms,  a  doorkeeper,  etc.  But 
the  analogy  is  anything  but  complete ;  and  the 
matter  of  grievance  is  found  in  the  difference. 
Whereas  conscience  and  religion  need  have  noth¬ 
ing  to  do  with  the  appointment  of  a  doorkeeper  and 
of  a  page  to  members  of  Congress  and  with  their 
support  from  the  treasury,  conscience  and  religion 
do  have  a  great  deal  to  do  with  the  employment 


INCONSISTENCIES. 


301 


and  support  of  an  officer  ministering  in  religion. 
Then,  we  believe  the  churches  of  Washington  city 
are  both  able  and  willing  to  attend  to  all  the  re¬ 
ligious  wants  of  our  Congressmen;  but  supposing 
such  not  to  be  the  case,  it  is  not  the  business  of 
our  Government  to  “accommodate”  its  officers 
with  religious  ministrations  any  more  than  it  is 
thus  to  accommodate  any  of  its  private  citizens.  As 
these  must  provide  their  own  churches  and  clergy, 
so  let  Congressmen  do,  if  they  choose :  a  point 
against  them,  and  the  custom  they  would  uphold, 
surely  well  taken.  Nor  will  the  plea  of  poverty 
be  of  any  avail  here;  the  proper  way  to  meet  that 
is,  not  to  buy  the  bread  of  body  and  of  soul  for 
them  but,  so  to  remunerate  them  for  their  services 
as  to  enable  each  to  supply  his  every  want  as  he 
may  deem  best.  Lastly,  we  are  pointed  to  the  fact 
that  many  of  its  members  desire  the  blessing  of 
God  to  be  invoked  upon  the  labors  of  the  day. 
All  honor  to  such  men ;  and  may  there  be  none 
other !  But  this  is  done  by  the  devout  and  patriotic 
citizens  of  our  land;  then  this  can  be,  and  we 
hope  is,  done  also  by  the  members  individually. 
And  whereas  more  cannot  be  done  without  the 
sacrifice  of  most  holy  and  precious  principles,  that 
is  sufficient  to  render  the  work  of  legislation  ac¬ 
ceptable  in  the  sight  of  God  as  far  as  it  is  within 
the  power  of  prayer  to  do  so. 

One  of  the  chief  objections  to  an  ecclesiastical 
establishment — a  thing  wholly  repugnant  to  the 
letter  and  spirit  of  our  Constitution — is  the  sup¬ 
port  of  religion  by  enforced  taxation.  This  same 
evil  we  have,  though  it  be  but  in  a  measure  small, 


302 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


V. 


in  the  appointment  of  chaplains  at  the  public  ex¬ 
pense,  and  in  the  people’s  name  and  behalf.  A 
little  reflection  will  show  that  in  this  particular 
feature  there  is  virtually  no  difference  between  the 
clergy  of  an  Establishment  and  a  chaplain  to  our 
Congress,  Army  or  Navy. 

§  16.  GENERAL  REVIEW  OF  PRINCIPLES  AND 

PRACTICES,  AND  THE  PROBLEM  OF  HARMONIZ¬ 
ING  THEM. 

That  God  and  the  fear,  love  and  trust  of  God 
are  ultimately  the  only  real  and  safe  foundation 
of  all  good  law  and  order,  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
It  is  a  fact  divinely  revealed  and  taught,  logically 
reasonable  and  creditable,  historically  confirmed  and 
demonstrated,  and  religiously  believed  and  con¬ 
fessed  by  humanity  without  any  exceptions  worth 
the  notice.  Now  whether  a  system  of  law  and  or¬ 
der  make  express  mention  of  this  grand  and  incon¬ 
trovertible  fact  or  do  not,  in  either  case  the  fact  is 
thereby  neither  established  nor  overthrown.  We 
have  seen  that  the  Federal  Constitution  contains 
no  such  recognition  in  the  words  of  its  text,  while 
in  the  preambles  to  the  constitutions  of  some  of  the 
States  or  in  their  declarations  of  rights  it  does 
occur.  Now  it  is  claimed  that  the  National  Consti¬ 
tution,  though  it  do  not  say  it  in  so  many  words, 
does  acknowledge  general  Christianity  as  the  relig¬ 
ion  not  only  of  our  people  but  also  of  our  Govern¬ 
ment.  “The  Government  of  the  United  States,” 
says  a  certain  writer,  “has  always  acknowledged 


16.  THE  PROBLEM  OF  HARMONIZING,  ETC. 


303 


the  authority  of  religion  in  all  ways  that  could 
not  trench  upon  the  boundary  lines  of  ecclesi¬ 
astical  and  sectarian  influence.  It  is  neither  ec¬ 
clesiastical,  nor  sectarian,  nor  atheistic,  but  it  is 
religious.”  Our  Government  is  religious !  What 
does  this  assertion  signify,  and,  when  properly  in¬ 
terpreted,  is  it  true  ? 

From  any  negations  and  restrictions  concern¬ 
ing  religious  affairs,  as  found  in  the  Constitution, 
nothing  can  be  advanced  in  support  of  the  state¬ 
ment.  Now  suppose  our  Government  were  form¬ 
ally  to  declare  by  its  Constitution,  simply  as  mat¬ 
ters  of  fact,  that  the  people  of  the  country  are  gen 
erally  religious  and  that  the  prevailing  religion  is 
the  Christian;  that  religion,  and  especially  Chris¬ 
tianity,  has  great  political  worth;  that  in  the  free 
enjoyment  and  exercise  of  their  religious  convic¬ 
tions  the  people  shall  be  protected;  and  finally, 
that  some  of  the  precepts  and  principles  of  religion, 
such  namely  as  are  found  political  in  their  nature 
and  are  highly  conducive  to  good  government,  may 
at  any  time  be  made  law  or  a  principle  of  legisla¬ 
tion — would  these  and  similar  declarations  render 
our  Government  religious?  Surely,  he  who  would 
so  affirm  must  entertain  a  very  superficial  view 
of  religion  as  a  quality  and  a  predicate.  Any 
nullifidian  might  subscribe  to  such  declarations 
as  the  above,  and  not  in  the  least  commit  himself ; 
yea,  an  atheist  even  cannot  but  acknowledge  the 
facts  thus  set  forth,  as  he  might  admit  the  fairness 
of  the  protection  guaranteed  to  Christianity  and 
the  utility  of  applying  some  of  its  precepts.  This, 
atheists  have  done  again  and  again ;  but  they  re- 


304 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


V. 


mained  atheists  all  the  same.  No,  our  Government 
is  “  neither  ecclesiastical,  nor  sectarian,  nor  atheis¬ 
tic  it  is  simply  non-religious.  To  be  religious 
it  would  have  to  believe  and  adopt  some  sort  of 
creed  and  mode  of  worship,  though  these  were  of 
the  most  general  character  imaginable. 

To  know  and  acknowledge  the  existence  of  a 
thing,  to  perceive  its  excellence  and  usefulness,  to 
esteem  it  and  to  treat  it  with  becoming  respect,  to 
learn  from  it  and  be  profited  by  it  in  general,  to 
engage  in  its  behalf  against  all  undue  aggressions 
— such  actions  as  these  do  not  as  yet  make  that 
thing  our  own.  But  such  is  the  attitude  of  our 
Government  respecting  religion  and  the  Church. 
It  is  the  good  friend  and  faithful  protector  of  the 
religious  rights  of  the  people;  but  it  is  not  the  pos¬ 
sessor  and  dispenser  of  any  religion,  properly  speak¬ 
ing.  This  fact,  however,  that  the  Government  has 
no  religion  of  its  own  and  professes  none,  in  no 
way  contradicts  the  other,  to  wit:  that  it  is  upheld 
not  only  but  also  largely  influenced  by  religion  in 
all  its  departments.  Since  his  impious  denial  of  it 
cannot  possibly  undo  the  fact  that  a  man’s  life  and 
its  perservation  are  both  of  God,  how  could  the 
mere  omission — for  reasons  good  and  wise — to  adopt 
as  its  own  a  certain  religion,  set  aside  the  fact  that 
government  is  of  God  and  by  Him  upheld,  or  that 
its  main  strength  is  derived  from  religion,  and  that 
its  best  friend  is  the  Church  ? 

And  if  our  Government  is  religious — as  so 
many  claim — what  is  its  faith,  and  where  is  it 
written?  To  be  a  faithful  citizen  a  knowledge  of 
this  matter  would  be  absolutely  necessary,  and  this 


16.  THE  PROBLEM  OF  HARMONIZING,  ETC.  306 


should  be  readily  ascertainable  upon  the  above  as- 
*  sumption.  We  are  told  that  its  religion  is  not 
ecclesiastical  nor  sectarian,  but  a  broad  and  liberal 
Christianity.  Whatever  may  be  meant  by  this 
kind  of  Christianity,  have  we  not  churches  which 
in  distinction  from,  and  in  opposition  to,  other 
churches  of  our  land  have  made  this  broad  and  lib¬ 
eral  Christianity  their  creed?  If  so,  is  the  sup¬ 
posed  religion  of  our  Government  not  ecclesias¬ 
tical? — have  we  not  in  effect  an  Establishment? 
Again,  is  not  Christianity  of  every  kind — if  there 
be  any  meaning  in  the  word— concretely  sectarian  ? 
Ask  the  Jew  and  the  Unitarian,  and  they  will  tell 
you.  From  the  answer  these  will  give,  you  will  be 
driven  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  has  created  a  preferment  of  relig¬ 
ion  by  discriminating  against  the  Jew,  the  deist,  the 
Unitarian,  and  against  others  of  the  same  kith — on 
your  assertion,  of  course,  that  general  Christianity 
is  the  recognized  religion  of  the  Nation.  But,  as 
an  escape  from  the  dilemma  in  which  you  find 
yourself  involved,  suppose  you  embrace  these  par¬ 
ties  in  “the  religion  of  the  Government”  and  call  it 
Unitarian.  According  to  this  there  is  a  future  state 
of  rewards  and  of  punishments — now  where  will 
you  find  a  place  for  the  Universalists  in  the  relig¬ 
ion  of  your  Government  ?  That  the  laws  and  the 
courts,  the  Constitution  and  the  Government,  favor 
anybody’s  religion  in  disparagement  to  the  Univer- 
salist  is  a  dilemma  no  less  distressing  than  the  one 
we  have  tried  to  escape.  The  truth  is:  our  Amer¬ 
ican  system  of  law  and  government  is  neither  re¬ 
ligious  nor  irreligious — it  is  simply  non-religious  ; 

IB* 


306 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


V. 


and  in  this  its  necessary  character  of  neutrality  it 
accords  a  just  and  impartial  protection  to  all  its 
citizens  also  in  the  exercise  of  their  religion,  so  long 
as  this  is  found  compatible  with  the  public  peace. 
Our  wise  and  beneficent  policy  is :  a  friendly  and 
faithful  protection  to  all  forms  of  religious  belief, 
but  an  adoption  of  none.  The  trouble  is  that,  in 
this  whole  matter,  protection  is  too  often  mistaken 
for  adoption,  a  confusion  of  terms  greatly  to  be  de¬ 
plored. 

It  is  extremely  difficult  to  convince  some  good 
people  that,  as  things  are  in  this  world,  it  is  best 
for  civil  governments  as  such  to  make  no  profession 
of  religion  and  never  to  make  its  propagation  an 
object.  The  mere  suggestion  of  a  nomreligious  gov¬ 
ernment  fills  many  devout  souls  with  holy  horror. 
The  thoughts  first  and  uppermost  in  their  minds 
are,  that  such  a  thing  must  necessarily  be  some¬ 
thing  heathenish  and  impious.  Yet  it  would  seem 
that  a  little  sober  reflection  were  enough  to  remove 
all  such  misapprehensions.  Is  a  literary  or  scien¬ 
tific  society,  when  organized  upon  a  non-religious 
basis,  for  that  reason  alone  already  anti-religious 
and  therefore  godless?  No  more  is  a  government 
making  no  religious  profession  on  that  ground  alone 
to  be  pronounced  a  thing  godless  in  its  nature  and 
in  its  operations  inimical  to  godliness.  Though  it 
is,  organically,  positively  non-religious — since  it 
does  not  even  express  a  belief  in  God — yet  let  us 
entertain  no  such  unfavorable  opinion  of  our  own 
Government  which  is,  constitutionally  at  least,  the 
best  under  heaven. 

The  good  it  might  accomplish  were  it  to  es- 


16.  THE  PROBLEM  OF  HARMONIZING,  ETC.  307 


pouse  if  not  more  than  the  fundamental  doctrines 
of  Christianity — is  the  next  alluring  thought  with 
which  these  people  have  to  contend.  And  what 
doubt  can  there  be  as  to  the  probability?  Just 
think  of  Uncle  Sam’s  influence,  and  of  the  gold 
and  silver  in  his  pockets — what  a  power  for  good  ! 
What  churches  he  could  build,  what  seminaries  he 
could  endow,  the  missionaries  he  could  send  out, 
and  the  thousand  other  things  he  could  do  in  the 
service  of  religion,  were  he  only  a  believer!  But 
does  not  the  mere  naming  of  these  things  awaken 
some  uneasiness,  and  suggest  the  idea  that  he  might 
perish  in  the  very  attempt  to  do  them  ?  If  you  are 
an  intelligent  and  true  American  citizen,  surely 
they  must ;  and  you  will  know  the  reason  wThy. 
After  the  manner  of  a  paradox,  Uncle  Sam  is  not 
to  do  all  the  good  he  can ;  if  he  does,  then  will  he 
certainly  do  wrong.  Able  as  he  may  be,  he  must 
not  do  other  people’s  business.  We  expect  him  to 
be  mindful  of  his  own  calling,  which  is,  to  govern 
the  land  and  to  govern  it  as  best  he  can.  That  is  a 
work  great  and  good  enough  even  for  him,  and  it 
will  require  all  his  time  and  talents  to  do  it  and  to 
do  it  well.  Every  step  beyond  his  sphere  and  en¬ 
trenchment  upon  the  ground  of  others— say,  of  the 
Church — is  a  misdemeanor;  and  whatever  he  does 
in  the  field  of  another,  be  his  work  never  so  great 
and  good  in  form  and  effect,  is  not  a  good  deed  but 
is  a  misapplication  of  his  energies  and  of  the  funds 
intrusted  to  him.  Good  results,  though  they  may 
somewhat  palliate,  can  never  fully  excuse  a  trans¬ 
gression.  The  end  cannot  justify  the  means.  So 
the  Protestant  teaches  in  opposition  to  the  Roman¬ 
ist.  Alas,  that  at  times  the  Protestant's  practice 


308 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


V. 


yields  to  the  Romanist’s  precept.  Thus  the  Church- 
man,  to  defend  the  theory  of  ecclesiastical  establish¬ 
ments,  constantly  points  us  to  the  good  they  may 
accomplish,  never  to  the  wrongs  and  evils  neces¬ 
sarily  attending  them.  In  like  manner,  our  advo¬ 
cates  of  recognizing  God  and  Christ  in  the  Consti¬ 
tution  and  of  making  Christianity,  broad  and  lib¬ 
eral,  the  religion  of  our  Government,  always  look 
at  the  grand  results  which,  in  their  opinion,  might 
be  achieved  upon  such  a  national  platform ;  but 
that  by  the  execution  of  this  their  cherished  scheme 
thousands  of  our  citizens  would  be  wronged,  most 
precious  principles  of  civil  government  surrendered, 
the  Magna  Charta  of  our  best  liberties  impaired, 
and  the  very  existence  of  our  present  form  of  gov¬ 
ernment  destroyed — these  are  considerations  the)7 
pass  by  as  of  little  moment. 

But  why  contend  we,  and  should  every  citizen 
earnestly  contend,  against  the  reading  of  any  re¬ 
ligious  creed  into  the  Constitution,  wherein  such 
creed  is  neither  mentioned  nor  implied ;  and  why 
contend  against  the  introduction  of  any?  Certainly 
not  from  any  hostility  to  religion  but  from  a  sin¬ 
cere  love  of  it;  for  dearer  to  us  than  our  country 
even  and  the  matchless  framework  of  its  rule  is  our 
Christian,  our  Protestant  Christian,  faith.  By  this 
our  faith,  and  in  its  behalf,  do  we  insist  upon  the 
doctrine  that  the  rights  of  conscience  are  personal 
and  inalienable,  and  that  the  civil  government 
should  so  regard  them  and  accordingly  secure  to 
every  citizen  the  blessing  of  religious  freedom  in 
the  greatest  measure  possible  and  consistent  with 
the  end  of  its  own  existence.  This  very  thing,  we 


§  16.  THE  PROBLEM  OF  HARMONIZING,  ETC.  309 


claim,  our  Government  does  in  principle,  if  not  ab¬ 
solutely  in  practice ;  and  this  is  its  chief  glory. 
Let  every  friend  of  religious  liberty  jealously  guard  the 
rule ;  human  frailty  and  emergent  necessity  will  be  sure 
to  provide  for  the  exceptions . 

And  necessity  has  already  been  at  work  and 
wrought  out  such  exceptions— for  example,  by  cre¬ 
ating  the  office  of  chaplains.  We  have  denied  and 
combatted  the  assumption  that  such  and  similar 
offices  are  in  full  accord  with  the  fundamental  idea 
of  the  rights  of  conscience  and  of  religious  liberty 
which  underlies  and  pervades  our  whole  theory  of 
government.  We  hold  all  such  practices  to  be  ex¬ 
ceptions  to  the  rule  ;  and,  so  treating  them,  proceed 
to  show  what  can  be  said  in  their  justification,  and 
thus  ascertain  how  far  they  can  be  brought  into 
harmony  with  the  principles  from  which  they  are 
departures. 

While  we  seriously  question  the  necessity  of 
chaplains  to  our  National  and  State  legislatures, 
we  have  little  doubt  as  to  certain  post  and  regi¬ 
mental  chaplains  in  our  army  and  as  to  chaplains 
attached  to  our  vessels  of  war  and  to  some  of  our 
penal  institutions — these,  and  especially  the  last 
named,  every  religious  mind  must  consider  as  mat¬ 
ters  imperatively  demanded  by  the  needs  of  the 
individuals  therein  immediately  concerned,  as  also 
by  the  interests  of  both  the  State  and  the  Church. 
The  entire  question  here  simply  resolves  itself  into 
this :  “  Shall  the  souls  of  men  so  placed  by  the 

Government  that  they  must  either  forego  the  bless¬ 
ings  of  religious  ministrations  or  have  them  pro¬ 
vided  for  by  the  Government  itself— be  thus  pro- 


310 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


V. 


vided?  What  answer  does  conscience  make,  and 
what  says  Liberty  in  this  case  ?  And  again  :  if 
both  were  to  say  “Nay!”  what  shall  the  Govern¬ 
ment  do — heed  the  crying  needs  of  its  subjects,  or 
the  dictates  of  Conscience  and  Liberty?  We  an¬ 
swer,  for  once  let  it  hearken  to  the  voice  of  stern 
Necessity,  heed  the  appeal  of  Distress  and  bid  Con¬ 
science  and  Liberty  be  still  and — a  little  generous ! 

In  the  sense  in  which  we  here  speak  of  it,  it 
has  been  pertinently  remarked  that  “  The  con¬ 
science  is  the  most  elastic  material  in  the  world. 
To-day  you  cannot  stretch  it  over  a  mole-hill,  to¬ 
morrow  it  hides  a  mountain.”  And  yet  we  cannot 
believe  that  really  a  person's  conscience  can  be  so 
erroneous  and  erratic  as  to  be  violated  by  the  ap¬ 
pointment  of  a  chaplain,  say,  to  a  house  of  correc¬ 
tion  for  boys  and  girls,  even  were  the  appointee  a 
Luther  and  the  conscience  under  consideration  that 
of  a  Leo  who  by  his  bull  branded  him  as  a  heretic. 
But  assume  that  there  is  in  the  LTnited  States  a 
class  of  people  whose  consciences  are  wounded 
when  the  Government  uses  their  money  in  sup¬ 
port  of  a  Gospel  minister  in  the  few  cases  of  neces¬ 
sity  presenting  themselves,  are  there  not  many 
people  also  whose  consciences  demand  the  Govern¬ 
ment  to  act  just  as  it  does?  About  this  there  can 
be  no  doubt.  Were  our  Government  for  many  long 
years  to  station  our  soldiers  in  the  Western  wilds, 
send  out  our  navy  to  heathen  shores,  confine  our 
orphaned  or  abandoned  youth  to  protective  or  cor¬ 
rective  asylums,  and  cast  our  criminals  into  work- 
houses  and  prisons,  and  yet  make  no  provisions 
whatever  for  their  moral  and  spiritual  needs,  then 


16.  THE  PROBLEM  OF  HARMONIZING,  ETC.  311 


would  it  outrage  every  conscience  worthy  of  the 
name. 

As  there  is  a  conflict  of  personal  liberty  with 
personal  liberty  as  soon  as  men  come  to  live  in 
society,  and  as  each  must  renounce  his  personal 
liberty  and  be  governed  by  civil  liberty  in  his  in¬ 
tercourse  with  others,  so  in  matters  of  conscience 
and  religion — since  conflicts  do  arise,  one  must  at 
times  yield  somewhat  to  the  other  also  in  these 
things.  In  other  words:  just  as  we  deduce  and 
determine  our  civil  rights  and  liberties  from  our 
personal  rights  and  liberties  in  matters  generally, 
by  the  same  method  must  we  arrive  at  the  true  and 
practical  idea  of  rights  and  liberties  in  matters  of 
conscience  and  religion.  Widely  as  the  dictates  of 
the  consciences  of  men  differ,  often  as  they  do  con¬ 
flict,  the  cases  in  which  one  must  yield  to  the  other 
are  very  few ;  and  if  the  Government  is  involved 
in  the  difficulty  and  forced  to  a  decision  one  way 
or  the  other,  it  must  do  what  to  it  seems  best.  In 
this  way  and  in  no  other  are  we  enabled  satisfac¬ 
torily  to  solve  the  problem  of  harmonizing  prac¬ 
tices  with  principles  in  affairs  public  and  religious. 
Respect  to  the  consciences  of  all,  even  to  the  most 
froward  and  wayward — such  is  our  rule;  and  every 
disregard  of  them  an  unavoidable  exception. 


“I  am  not  to  be  understood  to  infer” — said 
Dr.  Franklin,  a  member  of  the  Constitutional  con¬ 
vention — “  that  our  General  Convention  was  di¬ 
vinely  inspired  when  it  formed  the  new  Federal 
Constitution;  yet  I  must  own  that  I  have  so  much 
faith  in  the  general  government  of  the  world  by 


312 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


V. 


Providence,  that  I  can  hardly  conceive  of  a  trans¬ 
action  of  so  much  importance  to  the  welfare  of 
millions  now  in  existence,  and  to  exist  in  the  pos¬ 
terity  of  a  great  nation,  should  be  suffered  to  pass 
without  being  in  some  degree  influenced,  guided, 
and  governed  by  that  omnipotent  and  beneficent 
Ruler  in  whom  all  inferior  spirits  live,  move,  and 
have  their  being.”  Similarly  Washington  ex¬ 
presses  his  grateful  joy.  In  a  letter  to  Lafeyette, 
he  says  :  “It  appears  to  me  little  short  of  a  miracle 
that  the  delegates  from  so  many  States,  differing 
from  each  other,  as  you  know,  in  their  manners, 
circumstances,  and  prejudices,  should  unite  in 
forming  a  system  of  national  government  so  little 
liable  to  well-founded  objections.  It  will  at  least 
be  a  recommendation  to  the  proposed  Constitution 
that  it  is  provided  with  more  checks  and  barriers 
against  the  introduction  of  tyranny,  and  those  of 
a  nature  less  liable  to  be  surmounted,  than  any 
government  hitherto  instituted  among  mortals. 
We  are  not  to  expect  perfection  in  this  world ;  but 
mankind  in  modern  times  have  apparently  made 
some  progress  in  the  science  of  government.”  To 
Gov.  Trumbull  he  wrote:  “We  may  with  a  kind 
of  pious  and  grateful  exultation  trace  the  finger  of 
Providence  through  those  dark  and  mysterious 
events  which  first  induced  the  States  to  appoint  a 
general  convention  and  then  led  them,  one  after 
another,  by  such  steps  as  were  best  calculated  to 
effect  the  object,  into  an  adoption  of  the  system 
recommended  by  the  general  convention,  thereby, 
in  all  human  probability,  laying  a  lasting  founda¬ 
tion  for  tranquillity  and  happiness,  when  we  had 
too  much  reason  to  fear  that  confusion  and  misery 


16.  THE  PROBLEM  OF  HARMONIZING,  ETC.  313 


were  coming  upon  us.”  And  at  another  time  he 
said:  “  When  I  contemplate  the  interposition  of 
Providence,  as  it  has  been  visibly  manifested  in 
guiding  us  through  the  Revolution,  in  preparing 
us  for  the  General  Government,  and  in  conciliat¬ 
ing  the  good  will  of  the  people  in  America  towards 
one  another  in  its  adoption,  I  feel  myself  oppressed 
and  overwhelmed  with  a  sense  of  the  Divine  mu¬ 
nificence  !  ” 

Such  words  as  these  were  uttered  nearly  a  cen¬ 
tury  ago.  They  express  profound  gratitude  for  the 
happy  conception  of  our  glorious  system  of  govern¬ 
ment  and  its  successful  establishment;  the  fond 
hope  for  a  bright  future  and  a  prosperous  people 
pervades  them.  How  much  greater  reason  have 
we  to-day,  now  that  our  fathers’  hopes  have  been 
more  than  realized,  to  move  our  hearts  unto  thanks 
and  our  lips  unto  praise  to  the  Lord  of  Hosts;  for 
it  is  of  His  goodness  and  of  His  glory  that  our  land 
is  full.  Then  also,  every  favor  received  imposes  a 
duty  upon  the  recipient;  of  this  the  truly  grateful 
heart  is  sensible,  too.  Thus  the  best  and  greatest 
among  our  country’s  ancestry  were  men  wTho  knew 
and  did  their  duty.  Their  heritage  having  been 
transmitted  to  us,  it  being  ours  to  enjoy,  it  is  for 
us  to  guard  and  preserve  it,  and  in  an  inviolate  if 
not  improved  condition  to  hand  it  down  to  our 
children.  Hence,  in  the  language  of  the  illust¬ 
rious  Webster,  “If  we  and  our  posterity  shall  be 
true  to  the  Christian  religion, — if  we  and  they 
shall  live  always  in  the  fear  of  God  and  shall  re¬ 
spect  His  commandment, — if  we  and  they  shall 
maintain  just  moral  sentiments  and  such  conscien- 
14 


314 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


y. 


tious  convictions  of  duty  as  shall  control  the  heart 
and  life, — we  may  have  the  highest  hopes  of  the 
future  fortunes  of  our  country;  and  if  we  maintain 
those  institutions  of  government,  and  that  political 
union  exceeding  all  praise  as  much  as  it  exceeds 
all  former  examples  of  political  association,  we 
may  be  sure  of  one  thing,  that,  while  our  country 
furnishes  material  for  a  thousand  masters  of  the 
historic  art,  it  will  be  no  topic  for  a  Gibbon — it 
will  have  no  decline  and  fall.  It  will  go  on  pros¬ 
pering  and  to  prosper.  But  if  we  and  our  posterity 
neglect  religious  instruction  and  authority,  violate 
the  rules  of  eternal  justice,  trifle  with  the  injunc¬ 
tions  of  morality,  and  recklessly  destroy  the  politi¬ 
cal  constitution  which  holds  us  together,  no  man 
can  tell  how  sudden  a  catastrophe  may  overwhelm 
us  that  shall  bury  all  our  glory  in  profound  ob¬ 
scurity — If  that  castastrophe  shall  happen,  let  it 
have  no  history !  Let  the  horrible  narrative  never 
be  written !  Let  its  fate  be  like  that  of  the  lost 
books  of  Livy,  which  no  human  eye  shall  ever 
read,  or  the  missing  Pleiad,  of  which  no  man  can 
know  more  than  that  it  is  lost,  and  lost  forever.” 
(Address  before  the  New  York  Hist.  Society). 

Indeed,  our  country  is  a  good  land  and  large, 
our  system  of  government  as  perfect  as  men  can 
make  it,  and  our  Constitution  a  noble  document — 
may  it  now  have  and  always  a  people  to  fill  its 
every  word  with  spirit  and  with  love :  with  the 
spirit  of  that  good  will  which  alone  can  make  us 
strong,  with  the  life  of  that  righteousness  which 
alone  can  exalt  a  nation. 


§17. 


.PARENTAL  DUTIES. 


315 


VI.  THE  SCHOOL. 


PARENTAL  DUTIES  AS  LEADING  TO  THE 
ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  SCHOOL. 

t 


Weary  from  our  journey  through  the  vast  and 
busy  domains  of  the  Stace,  overwhelmed  by  the  glo¬ 
rious  things  of  Zion,  the  city  of  our  Lord,  we  enter 
awhile  the  more  quiet  sanctuary  of  Home — our 
own,  the  Christian  Home.  This  too  is  a  building 
which  God  has  made.  Founded  upon  the  hallowed 
union  of  man  and  woman  unto  husband  and  wife; 
cemented  by  a  love  sanctified  and  stronger  than 
death;  children  and  children’s  children  entered  as 
living  stones — its  jewels;  embellished  here  and  there 
with  the  bright  faces  of  good  uncles  and  aunts,  or 
of  orphaned  nephews  and  nieces;  strengthened  with 
the  supports  of  faithful  domestics;  encompassed  by 
the  guardian  angels  of  heaven;  secured  by  the  com¬ 
mands  of  the  Most  High,  and  by  the  promises  of 
His  goodness  made  happy — surely  the  home  so 
made  must  be  accounted  precious  before  God  and  a 
joy  unto  man.  If  in  its  ideal  there  be  seen  a  want 
of  harmony  and  beauty,  of  strength  and  worth — an 
imperfection  of  any  kind — the  fault  is  all  in  the  % 
beholder.  If  in  its  reality  there  be  found  anything 
unclean  and  corrupt,  the  hand  of  sin  has  defiled  it 
— as  designed  by  God  and  by  Him  made,  it  is  holy. 


316 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


“  And  the  Lord  God  said,  It  is  not  good  that 
the  man  should  be  alone:  I  will  make  him  an  help 
meet  for  him  .  .  .  And  the  rib,  which  the  Lord  God 
had  taken  from  man,  made  He  a  woman,  and 
brought  her  unto  the  man  .  .  .  And  God  blessed 
them,  and  God  said  unto  them,  Be  fruitful,  and 
multiply,  and  replenish  the  earth,  and  subdue  it: 
and  have  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and 
over  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  over  every  living  thing 
that  moveth  upon  the  earth  .  .  .  And  thou  shalt 
love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thine  heart,  and 
v^ith  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  might.  And 
these  words  which  I  command  thee  this  day,  shall 
be  in  thine  heart :  And  thou  shalt  teach  them  dili¬ 
gently  unto  thy  children,  and  shalt  talk  of  them 
when  thou  sittest  in  thine  house,  and  when  thou 
walkest  in  the  way,  and  when  thou  liest  down,  and 
when  thou  risest  up”.  .  .  And  to  the  children  He 
says:  “ Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother;  that  thy 
days  may  be  long  upon  the  land  which  the  Lord 
thy  God  giveth  thee.”  Such  is  the  material  for 
our  present  theme;  and  who  could  question  the 
truth  and  wisdom,  the  binding  force  and  supreme 
worth  of  these  momentous  words? 

As  in  that  first  so  in  every  marriage,  it  is  the 
all-wise  and  benign  Creator  who  brings  the  wife  unto 
the  man  and  the  husband  unto  the  woman,  if  in 
His  name  they  enter  this  good  estate.  As  then  He 
blessed  them,  even  so  now;  and  the  commands 
then  given,  the  same  are  given  now  to  husband 
and  wife,  to  father  and  mother,  to  son  and  daugh¬ 
ter.  Throughout  all  the  kingdom  of  His  power 
there  is  no  treasure  so  rich,  and  in  all  the  kingdom 


§17. 


PARENTAL  DUTIES. 


317 


of  His  grace  no  joy  so  great,  which  God  were  not 
willing  to  bestow  to  honor  this  holy  estate  of  His 
appointment. 

“  And  has  the  earth  lost  its  so  spacious  round, 

The  sky  its  blue  circumference  above, 

That  in  this  little  chamber  here  are  found 
Both  earth  and  heaven,  my  universe  of  love, 

All  that  my  God  can  give  me  .  .  .  .  ? 


Almost  I  wish  that  with  one  common  sigh, 

We  might  resign  all  mundane  cares  and  strife ; 

And  seek  together  that  transcendent  sky 
Where  father,  mother,  children,  husband,  wife, 
Together  pant  in  everlasting  life !  ”  * 

In  the  one  —  the  kingdom  of  power  —  what 
greater  treasure  can  be  found  than  are  children  of 
sound  body  and  sane  mind;  and  in  the  other — the 
kingdom  of  grace — what  greatear  joy  is  there  than 
are  children  who  fear  and  trust  the  Lord?  “Lo, 
children  are  an  heritage  of  the  Lord:  the  fruit  of 
the  womb  is  His  reward.”  “  Tell  me  not,”  say 
we  with  Mary  Howitt,  “of  the  trim,  precisely-ar¬ 
ranged  home  where  there  are  no  children;  where, 
as  the  good  Germans  have  it,  the  fly-traps  always 
hang  straight  on  the  wall;  tell  me  not  of  the  never- 
disturbed  nights  and  days,  of  the  tranquil,  un- 
anxious  hearts  where  children  are  not!  I  care  not 
for  these  things.  God  sends  children  for  another 
purpose  than  merely  to  keep  up  the  race — to  enlarge 
our  hearts,  to  make  us  unselfish,  and  full  of  kindly 
sympathies  and  affections;  to  give  our  souls  higher 
aims,  and  to  call  out  all  our  faculties  to  extended 


*  Hood. 


318 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


enterprise  and  exertion;  to  bring  round  our  fireside 
bright  faces  and  happy  smiles,  and  loving,  tender 
hearts.  My  soul  blesses  the  great  Father  every 
day,  that  He  has  gladdened  the  earth  with  little 
children.” 

Yea,  thank  God  for  the  gift  of  children, — least 
known  in  the  epics  of  the  world,  yet  among  its 
heroes  so  great.  The  sweetest  herb  in  the  Father’s 
husbandry  and  of  all  its  flowers  the  most  beautiful, 
yet,  save  in  a  mother's  madrigal,  their  praise  is 
seldom  sung;  they  would  seem  to  grow  too  low  and 
too  near  to  be  seen' by  a  lofty,  hasty  world.  Yet  of 
them  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  where  their  angels 
do  alwavs  behold  the  Father’s  face;  and,  if  not 
here,  there  their  worth  is  known  and  their  service 
is  noted.  When  the  old  foe  of  all  that  is  of  God 
and  for  man  good,  would  estrange  the  hearts  of 
those  who  have  plighted  their  faith  and  love  and 
service  “so  long  as  both  shall  live,”  then  howT  often 
has  a  little  child  foiled  the  wicked  work  intended. 
By  Him  whom  he  serves  in  his  weakness  made 
stronger  than  the  destroyer,  he  has  taken  in  his 
right  hand,  as  it  were,  the  father’s  and  in  his  left 
the  mother's  heart  and  so  effectually  bound  them 
together  that  ever  after  they  were  “as  of  one  heart, 
and  of  one  soul.”  Then  think  of  his  service  to 
them  in  the  days  of  their  adversity:  how  he 
comforts,  gladdens,  strengthens  and  exhilarates  a 
parent  sick  or  weary,  forsaken  and  lonely,  care- 
wounded  and  perplexed,  and  when  poor  and  dis- 
pised  by  those  without!  Follow  the  husband  of  a 
wife  and  the  father  of  a  child  homeward,  when  his 
work  is  done :  there 


17. 


PARENTAL  DUTIES. 


319 


“  His  wee  bit  ingle,  blinkin  bonnily, 

His  clean  hearth-stane,  his  thriftin  wifie’s  smile, 

The  lisping  infant  prattling  on  his  knee, 

Does  a’  his  weary  carking  cares  beguile, 

And  makes  him  quite  forget  his  labor  and  his  toil.”* * 

“  Are  you  not  surprised  to  find  how  independent 
of  money  peace  of  conscience  is,  and  how  much 
happiness  can  be  condensed  in  the  humblest  home? 
A  cottage  will  not  hold  the  bulky  furniture  and 
sumptuous  accommodations  of  a  mansion;  but  if 
God  be  there,  a  cottage  will  hold  as  much  happiness 
as  might  stock  a  palace.”  j  To  be  happy,  our  home 
need  not  be  a  palace,  or  a  mansion,  or  a  cottage 
even — any  abode  is  large  and  good  enough,  if  only 
there  is  room  for  God,  for  love  and  for  children — 
where  these  are  found,  there  is  a  home,  a  Christian 
home;  and  there  is  all  of  heaven,  and  of  earth 
enough  abundantly  to  satisfy  a  godly  heart. 

Now  where  there  are  so  many  favors  enjoyed, 
there  also  must  be  gratitude;  and  where,  as  in  the 
Christian  home,  there  are  such  rich  treasures  held 
in  trust,  there  must  be  duties.  ‘  T  is  the  gratitude 
of  parents  for  the  gift  of  children  and  its  intelligent 
and  dutiful  exercise  for  the  children’s  good  which 
now  claims  our  special  attention.  Than  these  there 
are  no  higher  earthly  gifts  in  the  esteem  of  a  fath¬ 
er’s  and  mother’s  heart;  certainly  this  should  know 
no  higher  care  and  no  duty  more  sacred  than  the 
study  of  their  children’s  nature  and  destiny,  their 
capabilities  and  needs,  and  than  the  bestowal  upon 
them  of  all  those  things  which  their  proper  devel- 

% 

*  Burns. 

t  Rev.  C.  Hamilton. 


320 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


opment  and  true  well-being  demand.  Upon  the 
manner  in  which  this  work  is  performed,  ultimately 
depend  the  weal  and  the  woe  of  affairs  in  both 
Church  and  State.  Such  being  the  case,  we  can 
hardly  overrate  its  importance.  “The  tendency  of 
our  age  is  manifestly  to  withdraw  attention  from 
duties  which  are  retired  and  unobserved,  to  works 
which  court  public  observation ;  to  overlook  what 
is  secret  and  noiseless,  and  to  delight  in  what  can  be 
seen  of  men.  Yet  among  the  former  lie  many  of 
the  well-springs  of  human  society,  and  from  them 
issue  forth  streams,  that  are  diffused  through  innu¬ 
merable  channels,  to  purify  or  pollute  the  commu¬ 
nity.”* 

More  than  three  and  a  half  centuries  ago, 
Raphael  painted  the  Sistine  Madonna,  the  most  fa¬ 
mous  of  all  his  wonderful  achievements ;  and  to  this 
day  the  world  has  not  grown  weary  in  speaking  this 
master’s  praise.  ’Tis  well  and  proper  for  it  so  to 
do.  Again,  seven  cities  and  this  number  nearly 
doubled,  we  are  told,  have  contended  for  the  honor 
of  giving  birth  to  the  author  of  the  Iliad  and  the 
Odyssey — a  poet’s  story  of  battles  lost  and  battles 
won;  and  to-day  a  civilized  world,  as  by  common 
consent,  places  Homer  upon  a  pinnacle  of  fame  un¬ 
approached  and  unapproachable.  Say  that  this, 
too,  is  well  done.  If  now  such  admiration  and 
praise  be  bestowed  upon  a  Raphael  whose  pallet 
and  pencil  have  given  to  the  world  but  the  image 
of  whatever  is  noble  and  beautiful  in  the  human 
form — and  upon  a  Homer  who,  with  all  the  rare 
qualities  of  a  great  poet,  has  so  graphically  de- 

*  Parental  Duties,  by  Houston.  Introd.- 


17. 


PARENTAL  DUTIES. 


321 


scribed,  and  still  no  more  than  described,  the  pas¬ 
sions,  the  follies,  and  the  deeds  of  great  men  and 
brave — how  much  greater  praise  must  belong  to 
those  among  us  who,  by  a  life  of  labor  and  of  love, 
produce  the  reality  of  all  those  graces  which  the 
brush  can  but  paint,  and  who  inspire  the  deeds 
which  the  pen  can  but  picture!  No,  we  cannot  too 
greatly  magnify  the  office  of  a  father,  a  mother,  of 
the  educator  of  our  children  and  youth.  It  has  a 
glory  surpassing  many  and  surpassed  by  none. 

Great  as  is  the  power  it  unconsciously  wields 
for  good  even  from  the  first  day  of  its  earthly  exist¬ 
ence  on,  effectual  as  are  its  speeches  even  when  not 
a  word  it  can  speak,  serviceable  as  are  its  deeds 
when  not  a  hand  it  can  lift,  an  infant  is  helpless  all 
the  same;  and  great  and  manifold  are  its  needs. 
The  entire  new-born  man  groans  for  redemption. 
He  is  naked  and  hungry  and  thirsty  in  body,  in 
mind  and  in  spirit.  He  is  rich;  but  only  in  his 
titles,  in  his  rights,  and  in  his  claims.  Who  can  be 
the  trustee  of  his  possessions  and  the  guardian  of 
his  interests,  who  but  the  parents  into  whose  arms 
God  Himself  has  placed  him  ?  The  Spartan  notion 
that  children  belong  not  to  their  parents,  is  un¬ 
worthy  of  all  notice — by  their  own  testimony;  for* 
the  Spartans  themselves  have  said  that  their  laws 
were  brought  by  Lycurgus  from  Crete,  and  there, 
we  know,  men  “are  always  liars,  evil  beasts,  slow 
bellies.’’ 

Emphatically,  if  to  any  body  on  earth,  chil¬ 
dren  belong  to  their  parents.  But  not  absolutely. 
Like  everything  else  men  have,  they  are  a  gift  of 
God,  a  property  conveyed  to  them  with  well-defined 


322 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


conditions.  While  He  holds  the  children  to  obedi¬ 
ence,  He  commands  the  parents  not  to  provoke 
them  to  wrath,  but  to  bring  them  up  in  His  own 
nurture  and  admonition.  Strictly  speaking,  par¬ 
ents  are  not  the  free  and  independent  owners  of 
this  living  treasure  but  its  trusted  and  responsible 
stewards. 

The  Christian  family  is,  in  a  small  compass, 
the  State  and  Church  combined.  Within  this  his 
little  domain  the  parent  is  the  legislator,  the  judge 
and  the  executive,  all  in  one;  then  also  is  he  the 
prophet,  priest  and  king  of  this  community.  In 
the  affairs  of  body  and  of  soul,  he  is,  under  God, 
the  supreme  authority.  ’Tis  his  business  to  pro¬ 
vide  for  food  and  raiment,  for  protection  and  com¬ 
fort;  to  instruct  and  guide  into  truth  and  wisdom; 
by  commands  and  promises  to  direct  and  incite 
unto  good,  and  to  correct  the  wrong;  to  be  an  ex¬ 
ample  of  godliness  in  every  word  and  act;  and, 
above  all,  to  plead  the  cause  of  his  charge  before 
men,  and  with  God  who  has  committed  it  to  his 
care.  Besides,  throughout  all  his  endeavors  to  dis¬ 
charge  the  duties  of  his  high  office,  he  must  steadily 
keep  in  view  its  true  object:  to  bring  up  living, 
active,  and  useful  members  of  society,  of  the  Church 
and  the  State ;  for  such  is  the  will  of  the  Master 
whom  he  serves,  and  to  whom  both  he  and  the 
children  given  him  belong. 

In  speaking  of  this  domestic  ministry,  we  have 
purposely  devolved  its  disposition  on  the  parents 
without  distinction;  but,  contrary  to  the  views  of 
many,  we  have  had  in  mind  the  father  rather  than 
the  mother.  He  is,  pre-eminently,  the  head  of  the 


17. 


PARENTAL  DUTIES. 


323 


family  and  accountable  for  its  government.  Even 
in  the  work  of  early  education  we  see  no  reason 
why  the  mother  should  always  be  pushed  forward 
and  so  to  create  the  impression,  either  that  the 
work  is  exclusively  hers  or  that  she  must  have  been 
widowed.  “I  am  well  aware  how  fashionable  it 
has  become  to  eulogize  a  mother’s  importance  and 
influence  in  family  education;  and  this,  too,  not 
seldom  at  the  expense  of  the  father’s.  Far  be  it 
from  me  to  undervalue  the  maternal  office.  Its 
value  in  this  department  is  above  all  price,  and 
however  commended,  its  worth  has  not  been  too 
highly  praised.  I  appreciate  and  honor  that  in¬ 
fluence;  and  therefore  I  ask  for  it  something  better, 
more  substantial,  than  the  cheaply  furnished  ma¬ 
terial  of  eulogy.  I  ask  for  paternal  sympathy  and 
help  in  her  countless,  arduous,  and  momentous 
duties;  and  I  respectfully  enter  my  protest  against 
the  current  practice  of  rolling  this  tremendous  re¬ 
sponsibility  upon  the  maternal  charge,  upon  the 
plea  that  the  avocation  of  public  life  allow  no  time 
for  the  indispensable  aid  which  a  father  is  bound 
to  furnish  in  this  important  work.  I  will  here  quote, 
as  entirely  suitable  to  my  purpose,  the  views  of  an 
experienced  teacher  on  this  point :  ‘Duty  would  seem 
to  demand  that  every  parent  should  make  it  a 
serious  inquiry  how  far  he  is  authorized,  by  the 
law  of  love  for  his  off-spring  and  his  family,  to 
engage  in  such  an  amount  of  business,  of  what  kind 
soever,  as  to  banish  him  from  the  bosom  of  a  family 
of  which  he  has  voluntarily  made  himself  the  head 
— to  say  nothing  of  that  relation,  as  constituted  by 
heaven — as  to  keep  him  ignorant  of  concerns  which 
no  one  else  should  know  so  well ;  and  as  to  abandon 


324 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


to  the  care  of  others,  those  whom  nature  and  affec¬ 
tion  have  taught  to  seek  in  him  a  guardian  and 
guide.  Would  it  not  be  well  for  parents  sometimes 
to  reflect  whether  it  would  not  be  better  for  their 
families  to  be  a  little  less  wealthy,  if,  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  it,  their  children  might  be  rendered  more 
capable  of  using  what  they  did  possess  to  better 
advantage?  Suppose  that  a  legal  practitioner 
should  have  some  fewer  cases  on  his  docket — a 
physician  should  attend  to  somewhat  fewer  patients 
—  a  place-man  should  not  continue  quite  so  long 
in  office,  or  be  content  to  hold  somewhat  fewer  posts 
— a  merchant  should  be  content  with  a  sphere  of 
business  somewhat  more  contracted — the  manufac¬ 
turer  should  put  somewhat  fewer  hundred  spindles 
into  operation — and  the  speculator  should  lose,  now 
and  then,  a  bargain  :  might  not  each  case,  in  many 
instances,  be  compensated  an  hundred  fold  in  the 
benefit  done  to  his  children  by  his  own  personal 
superintendence  of  their  early  education — by  form¬ 
ing  in  them  a  love  and  practice  of  order,  obedience, 
morality,  temperance,  and  economy  ?  ’ 

These  remarks,  so  plain  and  palpably  true  and 
convincing,  are  made  on  the  basis  of  temporal  and 
moral  advantages  accruing  from  a  father’s  per¬ 
sonal  devotion  to  the  education  of  his  children ; 
apply  the  same  reasoning  to  the  immortal  interests 
of  their  souls,  as  placed  in  his  hands,  and  we  are 
startled  by  the  additional  force  with  which  the 
words  address  themselves  to  us.  And  here  we  re¬ 
mind  us  of  many  fathers  and  mothers  who  are  ever 

*  From  an  address  by  Dr.  T.  J.  Biggs  on  Domestic  Edu¬ 
cation. 


17. 


PARENTAL  DUTIES. 


325 


fighting  the  foe  for  others,  and  abroad,  while  at 
home  among  their  own  he  is  allowed  full  sway. 
Behold  the  zeal  and  activity  of  a  pastor  in  feeding 
the  lambs  of  his  flock!  and  his  own?  He  forgets 
that  they  too  are  of  his  fold  and  need  his  care. 
Proverbially :  preacher’s  children  are  the  most  re¬ 
creant  to  all  that’s  good.  Likewise,  those  lady- 
presidents,  or  secretaries,  members  of  committees, 
and  members  of  our  missionary  societies,  temper¬ 
ance  unions,  etc. — while  they  are  so  busy  in  res¬ 
cuing  heathens  from  darkness  and  the  sons  of 
others  from  a  drunkard’s  grave — where,  meanwhile, 
are  their  sons,  their  daughters,  and  their  hus¬ 
bands?  what  are  these  doing,  and  whither  are 
they  drifting?  Ah,  how  many  a  mother,  absorbed 
in  the  work  of  saving  others,  suffers  her  own  flesh 
and  blood  to  become  castaways!  But  He  who  is 
the  children’s  best  Friend,  and  who  is  ordained  to 
judge  the  world  in  righteousness,  says:  “ Whoso 
shall  receive  one  such  little  child  in  my  name, 
receiveth  me.  But,  whoso  shall  offend  one  of 
these  little  ones  which  believe  in  me,  it  were 
better  for  him  that  a  millstone  were  hanged  about 
his  neck,  and  that  he  were  drowned  in  the  depth 
of  the  sea.”  Matth.  18,  5-6.  Betimes,  “kiss  the 
Son,  lest  He  be  angry,  and  ye  perish  from  the 
way.”  Ps.  2,  12. 

Than  the  parent’s,  not  one  within  the  whole 
range  of  human  duties  is  more  sacred  and  of 
greater  responsibility.  There  is  none  so  delight¬ 
ful,  and  yet  so  difficult  of  discharge.  By  Him 
created,  indeed,  but  not  in  Plis  own  image,  as  was 
the  first  man,  God  places  the  child  into  the  arms 


326 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


of  the  father  and  mother,  by  their  service  to  be 
made  His  own  child.  To  this  end  has  He  created 
and  redeemed  it,  and  will  He  have  it  sanctified.  It 
is  to  live  and  labor  upon  earth  awhile,  acceptably 
to  H  is  will ;  but  its  true  home  and  heritage  are  to 
be  in  heaven.  The  way  in  which  all  men  are 
called  to  walk,  the  way  in  which  parents  are  to 
walk  with  their  children,  leads  heaven-ward.  And 
the  old  are  charged  to  lead  the  young,  the  parent  to 
lead  the  child.  He  who  has  made  them  all  and  pur¬ 
chased  them  with  His  blood,  He  who  has  prepared 
the  way  and  built  the  mansions,  and  who  bids 
them  upward  come,  has  provided  all  the  necessary 
means,  given  full  directions,  and  is  willing  to  add 
the  needed  strength.  There  can  be  no  excuse  for 
not  going,  or  for  going  astray.  But  these  means 
must  be  used,  the  directions  followed,  and  the 
strength  accepted,  if  parents  would  in  God’s  own 
good  time  stand  before  Him  and  say,  in  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  their  Lord:  “ Behold,  we,  and  the  child¬ 
ren  whom  Thou  hast  given  us!” 

Thoroughly  furnished  as  parents  are,  objec¬ 
tively  and  theoretically,  for  the  great  work  of 
domestic  education,  subjectively  and  practically 
many  hindrances  present  themselves ;  and  hence 
the  difficulty  of  the  task.  Too  often  there  is  a 
lack  of  the  requisite  perspicacity  and  knowledge, 
of  the  talent  and  inclination,  of  the  care  and  cir¬ 
cumspection,  of  the  confidence  and  devotion,  and 
— worse  than  all — of  a  due  sense  of  its  paramount 
importance  and  high  responsibility.  Add  to  these 
deficiencies  the  demands  otherwise  made  upon 
parents  and  the  consequent  want  of  time  and  con- 


18. 


WHAT  IT  IS  AND  SHOULD  BE. 


327 


venience,  also  the  innumerable  obstacles  arising  in 
a  thousand  other  ways,  and  it  may  be  readily  per¬ 
ceived  not  only  how  arduous  becomes  the  work 
but  that  in  most  cases  it  will  be  imperfectly  at¬ 
tended  to.  As  a  rule,  parents  alone  and  personally 
can  give  their  children  but  an  incomplete  educa¬ 
tion.  Let  all  be  done  that  can  and  should  be  done 
in  the  household,  even  then  the  work  is  done  only 
in  part.  Not  as  a  substitute  for  it  but  as  supple¬ 
mental  to  the  domestic,  children  are  entitled  to  a 
scholastic  and  pastoral  education.  Parents  can  not 
be  said  to  do  their  whole  duty  unless  they  call  to 
their  assistance — wherever  these  are  found,  and 
are  at  all  what  they  should  be — the  School  and  the 
Church . 

§18.  THE  SCHOOL — WHAT  IT  IS  AND  WHAT  IT 

SHOULD  BE. 

In  our  discussion  of  this  momentous  and  com¬ 
prehensive  theme,  not  much  more  than  the  most 
important  principles  can  be  pointed  out ;  and  this 
again  chiefly  with  a  view  of  finding  the  proper 
place  for  the  School  in  the  social  system,  includ¬ 
ing  politics  and  religion. 

In  the  outset  we  would  enter  our  earnest  pro¬ 
test  against  one  or  two  criminal  abuses;  and  of 
these  against  the  more  abhorrent  and  abominable 
first.  We  refer  to  the  outrageous  imposition  of 
those  who  would  avail  themselves  of  the  school¬ 
room  as  of  a  house  of  correction  or  as  of  a  hos¬ 
pital  established,  as  they  seem  to  think,  for  their 
morally  diseased  and  mortally  infectious  brood. 


328 


THE  SCHOOL* 


VI. 


It  is  true,  no  children  are  angels — far  from  it — 
and  they  cannot  be  expected  to  conduct  themselves 
as  so  many  models  of  moral  excellence.  However 
faithful  the  parents  may  have  been  in  the  matter 
of  their  early  training,  all  children  will  have  some 
faults,  and  not  a  few  will  be  criminally  inclined, 
when  first  they  enter  the  school-room — yea,  and 
ever  after  that.  Hence,  an  essential  element  of 
education,  and  therefore  an  indispensable  feature  of 
the  school,  is  the  moral  discipline  of  its  subjects. 
Nevertheless,  the  introduction  of  children  whose 
speech,  manners,  habits  and  influence  are  posi¬ 
tively  corrupt  and  unavoidably  contaminating,  is 
an  insufferable  wrong.  “  But  these  are  our  sons 
(and  daughters),  and  we  are  anxious  to  reclaim 
them.  Very  well.  And  so  are  all  our  friends,  and 
the  public.  But  this  gives  us  no  right  to  jeopard 
the  morals  of  others,  from  the  slight  prospect  of 
good  to  our  own  unfortunate  children.  The  risk 
of  increasing,  or  at  least  spreading,  the  moral  con¬ 
tagion,  is  much  too  great  to  warrant  any  judicious, 
much  less  conscientious  man  so  to  offend  against 
the  morals  of  his  country,  as  to  cast  poison  into 
the  fountains  of  science.  The  whole  community 
would  unite  in  reprobating  the  man  who  should 
introduce  the  cholera  into  an  institution  of  learn¬ 
ing,  induced  by  the  hope  of  recovering  the  patient 
infected,  even  though  that  patient  were  an  only 
son.  But  to  introduce  a  moral  pestilence  is  still 
worse  than  this.”  *  It  is  a  crime  more  heinous 
than  murder;  and  a  more  outrageous  abuse  of  the 
School  could  not  be  conceived. 


*  From  an  address  by  W.  H.  M’Guffy,  L.L.D. 


18. 


WHAT  IT  IS  AND  SHOULD  BE. 


329 


Not  so  bad,  still  very  reprehensible,  do  we 
consider  the  conversion  of  the  school-room  into  a 
nursery.  Schools  can  be  made  to  serve  many  pur¬ 
poses,  lawful  and  unlawful.  This  the  most  stupid 
and  unprincipled  are  very  often  most  quick  to  per¬ 
ceive  and  most  ready  to  put  to  use — and,  whether 
right  or  wrong,  good  or  bad,  they  seem  not  to  care; 
only  let  it  serve  their  selfish  purpose.  It  is  found 
to  be  a  very  pleasant  thing  to  shun  work  and  shift 
responsibilities,  and  thus  in  a  manner  to  save 
one’s  strength  and  to  ease  one’s  conscience  by  lean¬ 
ing  on  others  and  profiting  by  their  indulgence. 
To  be  rid  of  their  troublesome  supervision  and 
“just  to  keep  them  out  of  mischief,  you  know!’ 
the  toddling  young  are  sent  to  school.  And  thus, 
in  the  eyes  of  not  a  few  fond  mothers,  with  the 
dawn  of  every  new-born  school-day  the  good 
school-master  (or  mistress)  looms  forth  as  a  nurse 
no  less  serviceable  than  he  is  cheap.  Sorry  as  we 
are  to  destroy  the  pleasurable  visions  of  any  body 
and  to  deprive  any  one,  especially  a  mother,  of  any 
conveniences — and  that,  too,  in  a  world  where 
pleasures  are  so  rare  and  conveniences  so  few — not 
the  less  must  we  declare  against  the  practice  of 
sending  to  school  children  who  as  yet  have  scarcely 
outgrown  their  first  short  dress,  or  breeches,  as  the 
case  may  be.  Vvrhile  the  presence,  in  the  school,  of 
infants  may  divert  the  children  it  certainly  dis¬ 
tracts  the  scholars;  the  teacher  has  no  call,  nor  the 
time,  to  give  them  any  attention;  hence  these  little 
folks  themselves  are  left  unemployed,  and,  as  the 
Germans  have  it:  Muessiggang  ist  aller  Laster 
Anfang.* 


*  Idleness  is  the  beginning  of  all  vice. 
14* 


330 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


All  around,  then,  the  practice  is  an  evil  and  should 
be  discountenanced. 

The  object  of  the  school,  the  office  of  its  mas¬ 
ter,  is  to  educate — from  educo  -are,  not  from  educo 
-ere.  Yet  he  who  would  derive  his  idea  of  educa¬ 
tion  from  the  etymology  of  the  word  only,  will  in¬ 
deed  arrive  at  a  very  imperfect  conception  of  what 
its  work  implies.  The  one  would  base  his  “  theory 
and  practice”  on  -are,  and  another  on  -ere;  but  he 
is  the  wisest  and  the  one  most  likely  to  succeed  who 
plants  himself  on  these  and  on  many  an  -are  and 
-ere  besides;  above  and  before  all,  upon  that  -are 
which  the  greatest  of  all  educators  laid  down  when 
He  said:  “Simon,  son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  me?” 
then  “  Feed  my  sheep — feed  my  lambs.”  Truly  to 
educate,  one  must  begin  with,  continue  with,  and 
end  with  the  love  of  God  and  in  that  love  embrace 
the  pupil. 

Of  course,  we  are  speaking  of  the  education  of 
the  whole  man.  Its  classification  into  the  physi¬ 
cal,  the  mental,  and  the  moral  and  religious,  is 
eminently  proper  and  serviceable  in  many  ways; 
but  we  must  never  forget  that  either  kind  denotes 
only  a  part  and  that,  strictly  speaking,  no  part  can 
constitute  for  itself  a  perfect  whole.  No,  not  even 
a  physical  education  is  possible  unless  it  be  at¬ 
tended  by  the  mental  and  religious.  We  may  be 
unable  to  explain  it,  and  many  may  disbelieve 
it:  it  is  true  any  way,  that  “the  wages  of  sin  is 
death.”  From  this  we  conclude  that  whenever  sin 
is  allowed  to  thrive  in  the  heart,  the  body  must 
surely  perish.  “The  true  hygiene  of  the  body  is 
mental  and  moral  hygiene.  Grief  wastes,  care  dead¬ 
ens,  and  anxiety  corrodes  all  the  inward  subtle  vi- 


18. 


WHAT  IT  IS  AND  SHOULD  BE. 


381 


talities  of  our  being.  Hence  the  physiological,  as 
well  as  spiritual,  beauty  of  the  rule  appointed  for 
us  by  our  great  Maker:  rejoice  in  the  Lord  always, 
and  again  I  say  rejoice!  .  .  .  Hence  the  wicked, 
who  are  like  the  troubled  sea  casting  up  mire  and 
dirt,  are  not  to  live  out  half  their  days ;  while  the 
righteous  shall  flourish  like  the  green  bay-tree; 
and  hence  also  the  command  to  children  to  obey 
their  parents,  that  they  may  live  long  in  the  land. 
—  The  great  determining  laws,  therefore,  of  our 
compound  nature  are  the  laws  of  the  mind.”* 

The  physical,  the  mental  and  the  moral  na¬ 
tures  of  man  are  createdly  connected,  and  —  pre¬ 
supposing  that  the  child,  when  it  enters  the  school, 
has  already  been  born  again — a  true  education  sig¬ 
nifies  their  harmonious  development  and  nurture 
unto  a  fine  and  healthy  bodily  stature  and  a  grace¬ 
ful  deportment,  unto  mental  acumen,  correct  rea¬ 
soning,  knowledge  and  wisdom,  and  unto  a  fear, 
love  and  trust  of  God  with  all  the  heart.  Such, 
in  a  few  words,  is  the  education  to  which  every 
human  being  is  entitled.  Than  this  we  know  of 
none  other  whereby  his  individual  temporal  well¬ 
being  and  eternal  happiness  could  be  better  secured, 
and  whereby  the  true  interests  of  communities, 
states  and  nations  could  be  more  full}7  subserved. 
Such,  then,  must  be  the  object,  end  and  aim  of  our 
schools;  and  this  we  should  require  to  be  clearly 
understood  and  constantly  kept  in  view  by  those 
who  would  train  and  teach  our  youth.  With  re¬ 
gard  to  those  schools  even  which  professedly  offer 
but  a  partial  education, — for  example,  in  language 


*  Dwight,  Higher  Christian  Education,  p.  27. 


332 


THE  SCHOOL* 


VI. 


and  literature,  in  the  arts  and  sciences — we  should 
at  the  very  least  demand  that  they  in  no  way 
antagonize  the  grounds  taken  above,  before  we 
afford  them  any  patronage. 

“  He  that  increaseth  knowledge  increaseth 
strength/’  says  Solomon ;  or,  as  we  generally  say 
with  Lord  Bacon :  “  knowledge  is  power.”  Tis 
folly  to  doubt  the  truism;  ’tis  something  more  and 
worse  than  folly  to  fancy  that  to  know  is  to 
achieve,  and  that  knowledge  is  greatness.  Be  it 
never  so  great  and  good,  as  yet  no  one  has  been 
made  great  and  good  by  power  unapplied,  or  by 
power  abused.  Little  good  can  it  do  a  man  to 
know  the  way  to  usefulness  and  honor  if  he  has 
not  the  means  to  follow  it;  but  having  these,  yet 
not  the  will  to  use  them,  is  a  curse;  while  to  know 
the  good  only  to  despise,  to  hinder  and  to  destroy 
it,  is  wickedness  thoroughly  devilish. 

Yes,  knowledge  is  power;  but  whether  for 
good  or  for  evil  depends  upon  other  contingencies. 
To  fill  the  mind,  and  be  it  with  useful  knowledge, 
and  at  the  same  time  neglect  both  body  and  soul, 
is  a  most  dangerous  experiment.  It  is  related  of  a 
certain  Englishman  that,  on  the  suggestion  of  a 
French  infidel,  he  purposely  experimented  with 
his  own  son  to  see  what  an  education  of  the  intel¬ 
lect,  to  the  utter  exclusion  of  every  other,  would 
lead  to.  At  the  end  of  its  perpetration  the  wretch 
of  a  father  reported  that  his  son  “had  all  the  vir¬ 
tues  of  a  child  bred  in  the  hut  of  a  savage;  and  all 
the  knowledge  of  things  which  could  well  be  ac¬ 
quired  at  an  early  age  by  a  boy  bred  in  civilized 
society.”  Not  much  better  is  the  “education”  now 


18. 


WHAT  IT  IS  AND  SHOULD  BE. 


383 


given  by  many  schools.  A  secular  education  it  is 
called;  and  very  secular  it  is,  too.  Were  it  not,  in 
many  cases  at  least,  attended  or  followed  up  by 
something  better,  and  were  its  influence  not  other¬ 
wise  counteracted,  long  ago  would  it  have  pro¬ 
duced  results  as  destructive  as  they  are  worldly  in 
their  origin  and  wicked  in  their  nature.  Some 
one,  in  speaking  of  education,  has  said  that  it  is 
“Old  Experience  pointing  out  the  road  to  young 
Nature  —  a  mental  rail-way,  beginning  at  birth, 
and  running  into  eternity.”  Running  into  eter¬ 
nity,  how  very  true!  But  how,  into  an  eternity  of 
light  and  life,  or  of  darkness  and  death?  Whereas 
both  are  issues  possible  and  the  latter  is  the  more 
probable — since  “wide  is  the  gate,  and  broad  is  the 
way,  that  leadeth  to  destruction,  and  many  there 
be  which  go  in  thereat:  and  Because  strait  is  the 
gate,  and  narrow  is  the  way,  which  leadeth  to  life, 
and  few  there  be  that  find  it” — is  it  not  of  the 
utmost  importance  to  “young  Nature”  that  “old 
Experience”  point  out  to  it  the  right  wray  and 
enable  and  urge  it  to  pursue  that  and  no  other? 
That  the  teachers  and  schools  having  charge  of 
their  children  so  direct  and  influence  these  that 
they  may  enter  the  gate  and  walk  the  way  which 
lead  to  life — certainly,  with  less  than  that  the  con¬ 
sciences  of  such  parents,  as  at  all  believe  a  judg¬ 
ment  of  the  righteous  unto  life  and  of  the  un¬ 
righteous  unto  death  eternal,  can  not  be  satisfied. 

Are  we  correct  in  this,  or  not?  Living  in  the 
Christian  era,  and  in  the  midst  of  a  Christian  com¬ 
munity,  it  might  be  reasonably  expected  that  in 
this  we  do  but  utter  the  prevailing  sentiment  of  the 


334 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


people  of  the  day,  and  that  our  schools  are  found  in 
full  accord  with  that  sentiment.  But  what  are  the 
facts  in  the  case  ?  May  others — better  informed 
and  more  competent  than  we  are — answer  for  us. 
S.  S.  Randall,  engaged  in  the  schools  of  New  York 
City  for  thirty  years,  if  not  longer,  says :  “  That 
culture  which  regards  exclusively  or  primarily  the 
mere  attainment  of  knowledge,  to  whatsoever  ex¬ 
tent  it  may  be  carried,  or  to  whatsoever  degree  of 
advancement  it  may  be  enabled  to  arrive,  can  not 
be  otherwise  than  essentially  and  fatally  defective. 
And  yet  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  hitherto  the 
course  of  instruction  in  all  our  systems  of  Popular 
Education,  public  and  private,  has  far  too  generally 
assumed  this  direction.  Hence,  while  the  bounda¬ 
ries  of  science  have  been  almost  indefinitely  ex¬ 
tended  in  every  direction,  and  while  knowledge  has 
been  almost  universally  diffused  throughout  every 
civilized  community,  no  corresponding  advance¬ 
ment  has  been  made  in  public  and  private  mor¬ 
ality  and  virtue.  On  the  other  hand,  we  are  as¬ 
sured,  upon  the  most  unquestionable  authority,  and 
there  is  unfortunately  but  little  room  to  doubt  the 
fact,  that  the  increase  of  vice  and  crime,  and  the 
prevalence  of  dishonesty  and  of  open  and  secret 
fraud  and  corruption,  have  been  more  than  propor¬ 
tionate  to  the  increase  of  population  and  the  ad¬ 
vancement  of  our  modern  civilization  ....  That 
ignorance  and  immorality,  vice  and  crime,  destitu¬ 
tion  and  misery  still  so  extensively  prevail,  keep¬ 
ing  pace  with  the  advancement  of  our  population 
and  the  progress  of  knowledge,  and  that  education 
does  not  fully  realize  all  the  beneficial  results  which 


18. 


WHAT  IT  IS  AND  SHOULD  BE. 


335 


may  reasonably  be  expected  from  its  general  diffu¬ 
sion,  may,  it  is  believed,  satisfactorily  be  accounted 
for  ....  Fourth  : — By  the  fact  that  this  education 
and  discipline,  even  under  the  most  favorable  au¬ 
spices,  and  when  it  embraces  the  whole  period  of 
youth,  is  frequently  and  to  a  great  extent  defective. 
1.  In  not  being  sufficiently  comprehensive ,  failing  to 
embrace  in  its  culture  the  whole  nature  of  the  child, 
physical,  intellectual,  moral  and  religious,  and  omit¬ 
ting  or  neglecting  that  assiduous,  careful  and  con¬ 
scientious  training  and  discipline  of  the  affections 
and  passions  upon  which  so  essential  a  part  of 
the  future  character  is  destined  inevitably  to  de¬ 
pend  .  . 

In  an  article  from  the  Proceedings  of  “  The  Col¬ 
lege  of  Professional  Teachers f  organized  in  Cincinnati 
in  1833  and  continued  till  1841 — Benjamin  Hun- 
toon  describes  the  general  state  of  affairs  as  follows 
— which  reading,  all  will  acknowledge  that  since 
then  there  has  been  no  improvement,  to  say  the 
least. 

“It  is  one  of  the  glorious  prerogatives  of  rea¬ 
son  that  it  controls  blind  force,  and  renders  the 
most  powerful  agencies  of  nature  subservient  to  the 
comfort  and  use  of  man.  It  is  not  this  practical 
skill,  in  the  adaptation  of  the  physical  sciences  to 
the  arts  of  life,  that  is  to  be  deprecated  as  danger¬ 
ous  to  the  best  hopes  of  man.  But  a  tendency  to 
direct  the  attention  almost  exclusively  to  the  opera¬ 
tion  of  mechanical  laws,  to  seek  chiefly  an  outward 
tangible  prosperity,  to  regard  the  conquests  which 
mind  achieves  over  matter,  as  its  best  and  noblest 


*  Popular  Education,  p.  p.  226  and  239. 


336 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


triumphs,  while  the  moral  and  religious  element  of 
our  nature,  its  undying  energies  and  affections,  are 
in  comparison  overlooked — a  tendency  nourished  by 
the  growth  of  wealth,  and  a  state  of  society  in  a 
high  degree  artificial — may  well  be  viewed  with  ap¬ 
prehension  and  alarm.  This  is  a  danger  to  which 
I  apprehend  we  are  peculiarly  exposed.  It  is  a 
lamentable  fact  that  moral  education  has  not  kept 
pace  with  the  cultivation  of  the  physical  sciences. 
Much  more  has  been  achieved  for  man’s  outward 
convenience  than  for  the  development  and  strength 
of  his  moral  affections  and  principles.  The  signal 
success  which  has  followed  the  enterprises  in  the 
mechanic  arts,  and  the  ample  rewards,  both  of  for¬ 
tune  and  fame,  attendant  upon  that  success,  have 
had  a  powerful  influence  upon  all  classes  of  the 
community.  It  is  felt  in  every  department  of  so¬ 
ciety  ;  it  pervades  all  ranks  and  conditions.  In  the 
ceaseless  struggle  and  absorbing  thirst  for  wealth, 
which  is  thus  generated  by  success,  the  mind, 
except  as  to  the  particular  objects  and  interests 
under  consideration,  is  left  unemployed.  Many  of 
the  powers  of  the  human  soul,  many  of  its  grand 
and  noble  faculties  become  altogether  inert.  The 
moral  nature  is  suffered  to  lie  waste  when  it  most 
deserves,  for  its  own  sake  and  for  the  results  it 
would  produce,  to  be  cultivated  and  cherished  un¬ 
til  it  should  exhibit  that  sublime  excellence  for 
which  it  was  originally  designed  by  its  Creator.  I 
am  aware  it  may  be  contended  that,  by  this  very 
constant  struggle  and  ceaseless  competition,  many 
of  the  intellectual  faculties  are  aroused,  stimulated, 
and  quickened,  which  it  is  one  end  of  education  to 
accomplish  ....  And  this  with  many  is  regarded 


18. 


WHAT  IT  IS  AND  SHOULD  BE. 


337 


as  the  great  object  of  education — not  merely  in  our 
common  schools,  but  in  our  colleges  and  higher 
seminaries  of  learning.  The  value  of  every  acqui¬ 
sition  is  estimated  by  the  account  to  which  it  may 
be  turned  for  the  accumulation  of  wealth.  Learn¬ 
ing  is  sought  as  an  instrument  of  worldly  gain.  A 
public  education  is  coveted  as  conferring  upon  its 
possessor  the  power  of  converting  all  the  elements 
of  nature  and  society  to  his  own  selfish  ends,  to 
gratify  the  desire  of  gain,  or  pamper  the  pride  of 
opulence  ....  But  who  .  .  .  shall  regard  the  minds 
and  characters  of  men,  as  of  chief  concern,  and  there¬ 
fore  strive  anxiously,  and  vigorously,  to  enlarge 
the  means  of  education  and  virtue,  watch  over  the 
schools,  encourage  the  institution  of  philanthropy, 
and  labor  for  whatever  advances  society  by  advanc¬ 
ing  the  greatest  good  of  its  individual  members^ 
viewed  in  their  whole  natures — intellectual,  moral, 
and  religious,  as  well  as  physical  and  temporal — in 
their  relation  to  God  and  their  fellow-creatures,  to 
time  and  to  eternity  ?  These  great  objects  of  edu¬ 
cation  seem  to  me  to  be  dimly  apprehended  by  the 
vast  majority  of  parents  and  teachers.” 

Even  so!  But  again,  whence  is  the  evil  and 
what  is  its  remedy?  It  is  wholly  moral  in  its 
nature;  and  it  being  chiefly  the  result  of  some  de¬ 
fect  in  our  educational  system,  there  can  be  no 
trouble  about  finding  the  proper  corrective  and  de¬ 
termining  where  this  is  to  be  applied.  For  all  dis¬ 
eases  of  this  kind  there  is  a  well-known  specific : 
one  which  never  fails  to  cure,  wherever  given  and 
taken  according  to  prescription.  It  will  as  effect¬ 
ively  subdue  the  troubles  of  Caesar  as  it  heals  “  the 
15 


338 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


affliction  of  Joseph.”  Plainly,  the  only  thing  which 
can  deliver  us  from  the  evils  whereof  we  complain 
and  avert  the  calamities  whose  coming  we  dread,  is 
the  introduction  into  our  schools  of  Christianity — 
of  the  Bible  and  of  Christian  teachers.  During  his 
last  illness,  General  Jackson,  pointing  to  the  family 
Bible,  cried  out  to  a  friend:  “That  book,  sir,  is  the 
rock  on  which  our  republic  rests !  It  is  the  bul- 
work  of  our  free  institutions!”  Words  more  true 
were  never  spoken  by  man,  and  few  of  such  supreme 
importance. 

When  we  here  commend  the  Bible  as  a  school¬ 
book,  we  do  not  mean  its  use  merely  as  a  reader  or 
as  a  book  of  devotion  but  as  a  daily  book  of  in¬ 
struction.  By  its  own  merits  it  deserves  the  first 
place  and  the  highest  in  every  system  of  educa¬ 
tion.  What  substitute  can  the  world  offer  us  'for 
its  history,  profane  and  sacred,  that  could  in  any 
way  fill  its  place  and  claim  its  authority  ?  Than 
the  thetical,  dogmatic  genesis  of  the  Mosaic  hex- 
a-hemeron,  wrhose  theory  of  the  origin  and  species 
of  things  this  day  stands  more  thoroughly  attested 
and  generally  approved?  In  the  department  of 
biography,  where  is  there  anything  so  preventive 
of  evil,  so  productive  of  good,  and  withal  so  de¬ 
lightfully  interesting,  as  are  the  lives  of  Bible 
characters?  In  anthropology,  what  human  erudi¬ 
tion  could  ever  have  laid  open  to  our  view,  as  does 
the  Bible,  and  explained  to  us  our  intellectual  and 
moral  natures,  our  real  condition,  our  capabilities, 
our  needs,  and  our  destiny?  To  our  mental  and 
moral  philosophy  its  contributions  are  simply  be¬ 
yond  all  price.  With  its  matchless  poetry,  poets 


18. 


WHAT  IT  IS  AND  SHOULD  BE. 


839 


themselves  are  delighted — all  reading  it,  speak  of  it 
with  admiration ;  and  not  a  few  have  drawn  from 
it  their  best  material  and  the  highest  inspiration. 
Then,  without  it,  what  can  man  know  about  his 
Maker,  the  sinner  about  his  Redeemer,  and  the 
spiritually  dead  about  Him  who  would  quicken 
them  unto  life  and  joy  unspeakable  and  full  of 
glory?  “  We  speak  of  our  civilization,75 — says  Sir 
William  Jones,  an  eminent  English  jurist — ,  “our 
arts,  our  freedom,  our  laws,  and  forget  entirely  how 
large  a  share  is  due  to  Christianity.  Blot  out 
Christianity  out  of  the  pages  of  man’s  history,  and 
what  would  his  laws  have  been?  what  his  civili¬ 
zation  ?  Christianity  is  mixed  up  with  our  very 
being  and  our  daily  life;  there  is  not  a  familiar 
object  around  us  which  does  not  wear  a  different 
aspect  because  the  life  of  Christian  love  is  on  it, — 
not  a  law  which  does  not  owe  its  gentleness  to 
Christianity,  not  a  custom  which  can  not  be  traced, 
in  all  its  holy,  healthful  parts,  to  the  gospel.” 
However,  the  greatest  merit  of  the  Bible  is  that  it 
is  the  Word  of  God — infallible  in  authority,  the 
hightest  wisdom,  the  only  true  regenerating  power. 
In  very  truth,  God  is  the  only  Educater  of  our 
race,  and  the  Bible  is  His  manual — with  this  He 
begins,  with  this  He  continues,  with  this  He  ends. 
He  will  use  none  other.  Nor  will  He  have  any 
one,  who  would  serve  Him  as  an  assistant  in  the 
moral  education  of  His  children,  use  any  other. 
For  any  Christian  people  to  want  to  educate  them¬ 
selves  and  their  children  without  the  use  of  the 
Bible,  is  simply  preposterous — nay,  it  is  impious  in 
the  extreme. 

“  Why,  then,  should  not  the  Bible  regain  the 


340 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


place  it  once  held  as  a  school-book?  Its  morals 
are  pure,  its  examples  captivating  and  noble.  The 
reverence  for  a  sacred  book,  that  is  thus  early  im¬ 
pressed,  lasts  long,  and  probably,  if  not  impressed 
in  infancy,  never  takes  firm  hold  of  the  mind. 
One  consideration  more  is  important.  In  no  book 
is  there  so  good  English,  so  pure,  and  so  ele¬ 
gant;  and  by  teaching  all  the  same  book,  they 
will  speak  alike,  and  the  Bible  will  justly  remain 
the  standard  of  language  as  well  as  of  faith.”  * 
“  Before  I  state  my  arguments  in  favor  of  teaching 
children  to  read  by  means  of  the  Bible,  says  Ben¬ 
jamin  Rush,  a  signer  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde¬ 
pendence — I  shall  assume  the  five  following  propo¬ 
sitions  : 

1) .  That  Christianity  is  the  only  true  and 
perfect  religion,  and  that  in  proportion  as  man¬ 
kind  adopt  its  principles  and  obey  its  precepts, 
they  will  be  wise  and  happy. 

2) .  That  a  better  knowledge  of  this  religion 
is  to  be  acquired  by  reading  the  Bible  than  in  any 
other  way. 

3) .  That  the  Bible  contains  more  knowledge 
necessary  to  man  in  his  present  state  than  any 
other  book  in  the  world. 

4) .  That  knowledge  is  most  durable,  and  re¬ 
ligious  instruction  most  useful,  when  imparted  in 
early  life. 

5) .  That  the  Bible,  when  not  read  in  schools, 
is  seldom  read  in  any  subsequent  period  of  life.” 

We  can  not  forbear  to  give  the  following  ap¬ 
posite  remark  found  in  his  elucidation  of  the  above 


*  From  an  Art.  by  Fisher  Ames,  written  in  1881. 


WHAT  IT  IS  AND  SHOULD  BE* 


341 


propositions.  He  says: — “I  have  heard  it  proposed 
that  a  portion  of  the  Bible  should  be  read  every 
day  by  the  master,  as  a  means  of  instructing  the 
children  in  it.  But  this  is  a  poor  substitute  for 
obliging  children  to  read  it  as  a  school-book ;  for 
by  this  means  we  insensibly  engrave,  as  it  were, 
its  contents  upon  their  minds;  and  it  has  been 
remarked  that  children  instructed  in  this  way  in 
the  Scriptures  seldom  forget  any  part  of  them. 
They  have  the  same  advantage  over  those  persons 
who  have  only  heard  the  Scriptures  read  by  a  mas¬ 
ter,  that  a  man  who  has  worked  with  the  tools  of  a 
mechanical  employment  for  several  years  has  over 
the  man  who  has  only  stood  a  few  hours  in  the 
workshops  and  seen  the  same  business  carried  on 
by  other  people.” 

Patrick  Henry,  once  so  great  in  pleading  the 
cause  of  liberty  and  who  loved  his  country  only 
next  to  heaven,  says  in  his  last  will  and  testa¬ 
ment :  “I  have  now  disposed  of  all  my  worldly 
property  to  my  family:  there  is  one  thing  more  I 
wish  I  could  give  to  them,  and  that  is  the  Chris¬ 
tian  religion.  If  they  had  this,  and  I  had  not 
given  them  one  shilling,  they  would  be  rich ;  and 
if  they  had  it  not,  and  I  had  given  them  all  the 
world,  they  would  be  poor.” 

In  the  language  of  another,  changing  a  word 
or  two,  uwe  maintain  the  right  lodged  in  every 
man’s  nature,  as  divine :  the  patent  royal  of  his 
birthright”  as  a  creature  of  God  and  designed 
to  be  made  both  His  child  and  His  heir:  “  to 
the  benefits  of  the  highest  possible  education  of  all 
his  faculties.”  The  good  will  of  his  Creator  and 


342 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


Redeemer ;  his  personal  happiness  in  time  and  in 
eternity ;  parental  love  and  duty ;  the  peace,  safety 
and  prosperity  of  his  country ;  the  highest  inter¬ 
ests  of  earth  and  heaven — all  demand,  loudly  de¬ 
mand,  that  this  divine  right  of  every  human  in¬ 
dividual  be  heeded  and  its  claims  be  satisfied. 
The  education  —  the  nurture,  the  learning  and 
training  —  which  a  people  owe  to  their  youth 
should  be  comprehensive,  embracing  all  the  needs 
and  capabilities  of  man ;  then,  throughout  its 
wThole  scope,  eminently  practical,  preponderately 
national,  and  decidedly  religious — purely  and  thor¬ 
oughly  Christian.  To  secure  it,  is  the  divinely 
imposed  duty  of  the  parents,  and  the  humanly  im¬ 
posed,  but  divinely  sanctioned,  duty  of  the  teacher. 
In  the  prosecution  of  the  work  the  school  must  be 
considered  rather  the  servant  of,  than  the  substi¬ 
tute  for,  the  family.  These  must  co-operate,  har¬ 
moniously  and  prayerfully — constantly  looking  up 
to  Him  who  giveth  the  increase  to  their  planting. 

§  19.  THE  RELATION  OF  THE  SCHOOOL  TO  THE 
STATE  AND  TO  THE  CHURCH. 

Comparatively  easy  as  we  may  find  it  theoret¬ 
ically  to  draw  the  line  of  demarcation  where  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  State  should  end  and  that  of  the 
Church  begin,  when  we  come  to  apply  the  theory 
so  established  we  are  sure  to  meet  with  some  seri¬ 
ous  difficulties.  One  reason  of  this  is  that,  different 
and  distinct  as  things  civil  are  from  the  religious, 
there  is,  at  the  same  time,  a  very  close  relation  and 
inter-dependency  between  them.  Another  is,  that 


$  19.  ITS  RELATION  TO  STATE  AND  CHURCH.  343 


the  subjects  affected  by  them  are  largely  the  same, 
since  both,  the  State  and  the  Church,  have  to  do 
with  men  and  things,  though  each  in  a  way  and 
for  purposes  its  own.  Add  to  these  the  vagaries  of 
the  human  mind,  the  obstinacy  of  the  will,  the 
selfishness  of  the  heart,  and  other  weaknessness  of 
mankind,  and  it  would  indeed  be  surprising  if  com¬ 
plications  and  conflicts  did  not  ensue. 

And  they  do  in  not  a  few  cases.  That  practi¬ 
cally  the  State  cannot  well  be  so  separated  from  the 
Church  as  to  be  absolutely  excluded  from  its  juris¬ 
diction,  we  have  seen  heretofore  while  discussing 
the  Sunday  question,  Governmental  chaplaincies, 
etc.  Besides  these,  there  are  other  matters  which 
lie  so  closely  upon  the  border-line  that  repeatedly 
they  have  been  made  a  bone  of  contention  between 
them.  Such  are,  for  example,  the  solemnization 
of  marriages  —  a  question  for  many  years  past 
troubling  the  society  of  Germany — and  the  laws  of 
divorcement;  then  also  the  rights  of  the  clergy  and 
of  congregations  in  their  contract  relations;  lastly 
and  chiefly,  the  education  of  the  youth — the  ques¬ 
tion  now  to  engage  us. 

At  this  stage  of  our  investigation  we  assume 
it  as  an  established  fact  that  the  existence  and 
perpetuation  of  both,  the  State  and  the  Church, 
imperatively  demand  the  education  of  the  rising 
generation :  the  one,  its  political  education,  not  ex¬ 
cluding  the  religious:  the  other,  its  religious  educa¬ 
tion,  not  excluding  the  secular.  To  the  one,  if 
any,  very  little  less  than  to  the  other  a  full  educa¬ 
tion  of  the  young  is  a  matter  of  vital  importance, 
yea,  an  absolute  necessity.  From  the  inherent 


344 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


right  and  duty  which  each,  as  a  divine  institution, 
has  of  preserving  and  perpetuating  itself,  it  follows 
that  the  State  must  have  the  right  and  duty  to  re¬ 
quire  that  the  children  of  the  land  receive  such  an 
education  as  its  own  essential  interests  demand; 
likewise,  that  the  Church  must  have  the  right  and 
duty  to  require  that  the  children  of  its  fold  receive 
such  an  education  as  their  spiritual  interests 
demand.  But  now,  the  right  and  duty  to  require 
that  a  thing  be  done,  is  one  thing;  the  duty  of 
doing  it  is  another  and  quite  a  different  thing. 
The  former  may,  but  it  need  not,  involve  the  latter. 
To  illustrate:  by  the  law  of  God  and  of  man  it  is 
the  duty  of  parents  to  provide  food  and  raiment 
for  their  helpless  offspring;  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
State  and  of  the  Church  to  see  to  it  that  all  parents 
within  their  jurisdiction  attend  to  this  their  busi¬ 
ness;  but  only  then  does  it  become  the  duty  of  the 
State  and  the  Church  personally  and  directly  to  so 
provide  for  the  offspring  of  parents  when  these 
cannot  or  do  not  do  it  themselves. 

In  a  manner  analogous  to  the  above,  it  is  one 
thing  to  give  a  good  secular  and  religious  education 
to  children,  and  to  do  this  is  the  duty  of  their  own 
parents;  it  is  another  thing  to  require  the  parents 
to  attend  to  this  matter,  and  this  is  the  duty  of  the 
State  and  the.  Church,  and  of  each  compatibly  with 
its  peculiar  office.  It  is  to  be  much  regretted  that 
these  are  not  more  generally  and  profoundly 
sensible  of  this  their  great  obligation;  in  other 
words,  that  education  is  not  made  universally  com¬ 
pulsory,  especially  by  the  State.  If  our  social 
statistics  teach  anything  that  is  reliably  correct,  it 


19.  ITS  RELATION  TO  STATE  AND  CHURCH.  345 


is,  that  ignorance  and  the  lack  of  moral  training  in 
the  young  constitute  the  chief  source  of  crime. 
“Is  it  not  notorious  that  the  millions  and  hundreds 
of  millions  lavished  with  such  profuse  and  boun¬ 
teous  liberality  for  the  education  of  the  people 
during  the  past  half  century  have  been  rendered 
almost  nugatory,  so  far  as  the  criminal  expenses  of 
governments  are  concerned,  by  the  continued  pre¬ 
valence  of  those  large  masses  of  ignorance,  combined 
with  destitution  and  vagabondism,  which  are  found 
in  all  great  cities  and  towns,  and  infest  to  an 
alarmingly  increasing  extent,  even  the  quietude 
and  seclusion  of  our  rural  villages  and  hamlets? 
Would  it  not  be  wise  to  arrest  this  fearfully  down¬ 
ward  tendency  by  the  efficient  exertion  of  that  un¬ 
questionable  power  which  every  commonwealth 
possesses,  not  only  to  furnish  abundant  facilities 
for  the  education  of  all  its  future  citizens,  but  to 
insist  that  each  and  every  one  of  those  citizens 
shall,  in  some  way  and  to  such  an  extent  at  least  as 
may  afford  reasonable  assurance  of  upright  and  vir¬ 
tuous  conduct,  participate  in  these  advantages ? * 
Say,  not  only  that  every  commonwealth  rightfully 
can  but  really  should  so  insist.  This  it  is  morally 
bound  to  do — no  less  than  an  individual  is  bound, 
if  he  can,  to  arrest  and  to  eradicate  any  disorder  in 
his  system  which  may  threaten  to  disable  him  or 
lead  to  his  destruction.  Then  too,  the  community 
is  entitled  to  protection  not  merely  by  the  punish¬ 
ment  of  crime  but,  in  part  at  last,  by  its  prevention 
also.  And  when  a  government  recognizes  its  duty 
here,  in  the  doing  of  it  let  it  bear  in  mind  that 


*  Pop.  Education,  Randall,  p.  177. 


346 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


“  Intelligence  without  virtue  increases  the  amount 
of  evil;  and  that  virtue  without  intelligence  can  op¬ 
pose  no  effectual  resistance  to  political  corruption.”* 

Essentially  the  same  in  this  matter  is  the  obli¬ 
gation  of  the  Church.  Only  there  is  this  difference 
to  be  noted  that,  while  the  State  is  to  look  after 
the  education  of  the  child  unto  good  citizenship, 
the  Church  is  to  see  to  its  education  chiefly  unto 
good  church-membership;  moreover  that,  while  the 
State  proceeds  legally,  the  Church  can  have  recourse 
only  to  evangelical  methods  in  the  discharge  of  its 
duty. 

Now  could  parents  generally,  thus  constrained 
from  without  and  from  within  moved  by  the  fear 
of  God  and  the  love  of  their  children,  personally 
attend  to  the  education  required  —  and  if  they 
could,  were  all  to  do  so  and  do  it  satisfactorily — 
then  might  we  be  discharged  from  saying  anything 
more  on  the  subject.  In  fact,  however,  the  real 
problem  to  be  solved  is  yet  before  us.  We  know, 
and  we  have  noticed,  that  parental  duties  invariably 
lead  to  the  establishment  of  schools,  domestic  edu¬ 
cation  being  found  quite  inadequate  to  fit  the  youth 
for  the  work  and  warfare  of  life.  In  this  connec¬ 
tion  the  all-important  and  intricate  question  de¬ 
mands  a  solution : — In  the  establishment  of  schools 
shall  the  people  proceed  as  citizens  of  the  State  and 
by  the  State,  or  as  members  of  the  Church  and  by 
the  Church,  or  privately,  that  is,  independently  of 
both  ?  That,  in  itself,  either  one  of  the  modes  sug¬ 
gested  is  lawful,  we  assume  as  self-evident.  The 
burden  of  our  inquiry  is  to  ascertain  the  compara- 


Hon.  John  M’Lean.  on  the  Formation  of  Society. 


J  19.  ITS  RELATION  TO  STATE  AND  CHURCH.  347 


tive  feasibility  and  merit  especially  of  State  and  of 
Church  schools,  under  given  circumstances. 

In  countries  where  the  State  and  the  Church 
are  united,  there,  as  a  matter  of  course,  the  two 
will  together  control  and  superintend  the  whole 
work  of  education,  leaving  dissenters  free  to  avail 
themselves  of  the  schools  thus  provided,  or  to  shift 
for  themselves  as  best  they  can.  But  we  have  de¬ 
clared  that  the  State  and  Church,  all  things  duly 
considered,  do  best  by  far  when  they  observe  the 
relations  of  a  neighborly  friendship,  and  do  not 
surrender  their  independence  by  forming  between 
them  any  closer  ties.  Upon  so  decreeing,  and  as¬ 
signing  Caesar  and  the  Daughter  of  Zion  to  a  state 
of  perpetual  divorcement,  as  it  were,  to  whom  shall 
we  give  the  child — the  School?  To  continue  the 
figure — were  there  two  children — a  secular  and  re¬ 
ligious  School — we  might  give  one  to  each,  in  the 
hope  thus  to  satisfy  the  parties.  However,  we 
have  admitted  the  existence  of  but  one  in  the 
premises,  and  accordingly  we  propose  to  dispose  of 
the  case.  Solomon,  in  a  similar  strait,  by  his  wis¬ 
dom  and  justice  made  happy  at  least  one  party; 
we  do  not  expect  to  be  so  fortunate  in  our  finding, 
but  we  do  desire  to  be  no  less  just  to  all  concerned. 

“And  the  king  said,  Divide  the  living  child  in  two,  and  give 
“  half  to  the  one,  and  half  to  the  other.’’  1  Kings  3,  24. 

Why  not,  it  might  be  inquired,  divide  the 
labor  and  commit  the  secular  branch  of  education 
to  the  State  and  the  religious  to  the  Church?  The 
suggestion  is  quite  plausible  and  points  to  a  way 
out  of  the  difficulty  which  would  seem  to  be  as  fair 


348 


THE  SCHOOL* 


VI. 


and  satisfactory  as  it  is  plain.  A  closer  survey, 
however,  reveals  the  fact  that  it  is  not  nearly  as 
practicable  as  it  appears  to  be  when  first  observed; 
and  then,  that  not  a  few  people  find  it  decidedly 
objectionable. 

The  plan  under  consideration  is,  that  the  school 
proper  be  non-religious  and  wholly  under  the  super¬ 
vision  of  the  State;  meanwhile,  that  the  religious 
wants  of  the  children  be  attended  to  in  the  family 
and  the  Church.  This,  it  is  claimed,  is  creating  an 
unjust  preference  of  the  secular  over  the  religious 
and  greatly  to  the  prejudice  of  the  latter.  With 
the  exception,  perhaps,  of  one  hour  in  the  Sunday- 
school,  for  the  supply  of  its  spiritual  needs  the  child 
is  referred  back  to  the  resources  only  of  domestic 
instruction.  Be  it  freely  admitted  that  in  a  few 
exceptional  cases  a  good  education  may  thus  be 
secured;  still  it  is  only  an  exception.  It  is  the 
unavoidable  inadequacy  of  domestic  efforts  which 
leads  to  the  establishment  of  schools;  and  it  is  an 
unwarrantable  presumption  to  suppose  that  this 
inadequacy  pertains  only  and  chiefly  to  the  secu¬ 
lar  feature  of  education.  Moreover,  to  the  Chris¬ 
tian  the  right  spiritual  training  of  his  child  is  by 
far  the  more  important;  and,  if  he  be  ordinarily 
intelligent,  he  will  know  that  a  thorough  religious 
education  requires  as  much  time  and  care  and  well- 
directed  labor  as  any  other.  So  viewing  the  mat¬ 
ter — and  there  are  thousands  who  do  so  look  at  it 
— it  is  not  at  all  surprising  to  find  him  dissatisfied 
with  any  and  every  educational  system  which, 
throughout  the  week,  devotes  thirty  full  hours  of 
organized  work  to  things  earthly  and  temporal, 


19.  ITS  RELATION  TO  STATE  AND  CHURCH.  349 


and  whereby  the  heavenly  and  eternal  are  put 
aside  as  things  inferior  and  of  a  secondary  consid¬ 
eration. 

Well-founded  or  not,  and  be  the  motives  of 
some  among  those  who  advance  them  pure  or  im¬ 
pure,  the  views  here  expressed  are  worthy  of  re¬ 
spectful  notice,  and  equity  demands  that  they  be 
taken  account  of.  Be  it  true,  as  it  is  often  charged, 
that  pastors  and  churches  rather  than  the  Chris¬ 
tian  community  —  that  sectarianism  rather  than 
religion,  and  ecclesiasticism  more  than  Christian¬ 
ity — are  at  the  bottom  of  the  whole  movement 
which  would  disparage  the  separation  of  secular 
from  religious  education — what  of  it?  In  the  first 
place,  are  pastors  and  churches  not  the  divinely 
appointed  guardians  specifically  of  the  religious 
interests  of  all  intrusted  to  their  care,  of  both  young 
and  old?  In  the  second  place,  suppose  it  to  be 
sectarianism  and  ecclesiasticism  whereby  one  or 
the  other  is  constrained  to  act  as  he  does,  on  the 
grounds  of  common  equity  and  on  principles  of 
civil  jurisprudence,  what  can  that  have  to  do  with 
the  decision  of  the  matter  before  us?  As  a  citizen, 
law-maker,  judge  and  juror,  what  will  you  have  to 
say  in  answer  to  the  position  assumed,  for  example, 
in  the  following  : 

“In  reply  to  the  first  objection — sectarianism 
— ,  we  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  recollected,  that  the 
Presbyterian*  Church  is,  among  her  sister  churches 
in  this  country,  distinguished  by  the  Creed  and 
Form  of  Government  which  she  has  adopted,  and 
published  for  the  information  of  the  world.  Now, 
if  she  believes  these  doctrines,  and  form  of  govern- 


350 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


ment,  to  be  scriptural,  she  is  unquestionably  bound 
to  endeavor  to  propagate  the  one,  and  to  establish 
the  other,  as  extensively  as  she  may  be  able;  and 
especially  to  teach  them  to  her  children  and  youth. 
It  is  certainly  the  duty  of  a  parent  to  instruct  his 
children  in  the  doctrines  and  forms  of  church-gov¬ 
ernment,  which  he  believes  to  be  in  accordance 
with  the  sacred  Scriptures.  While  he  is  diligently 
engaged  in  discharging  this  duty,  he  cannot  be 
justly  reproached  as  acting  inconsistently  with 
what  he  owes  to  others.  The  church  sustains  the 
relation  of  a  parent  to  her  members ;  the  duties  of 
a  parent  are  binding  on  her;  and  she,  while  acting 
like  a  parent,  is  as  free  from  blame  as  a  parent  who 
performs  the  duties  he  owes  to  his  children  .  .  .  . 
The  Presbyterian  Church,  as  already  said,  differs 
in  her  creed  and  form  of  church  government,  from 
her  sister  churches  in  this  country,  and  in  com¬ 
municating  instruction  to  her  children,  (no  one 
will  affirm  she  is  bound  to  withhold  instruction 
from  them,)  she  must  either  teach  what  she  be¬ 
lieves,  or -teach  nothing  more  than  what  all  sects 
believe.  But  who  has  a  right  to  prescribe  the  lat¬ 
ter  as  her  rule?  Who  can  free  her  from  the  obliga¬ 
tion  to  teach  whatever  God  teaches  in  his  word? 
Are  not  the  sacred  Scriptures  the  standard  of  faith, 
and  is  she  not  bound  to  fashion  her  own  faith,  as 
well  as  the  faith  of  her  members,  by  this  infallible 
standard?  To  this  divine  standard  slie  must  con¬ 
form;  and  as  she  may  not  add  to  it,  so  she  may 
not  take  from  it .  Had  she  done  her  duty  more 
faithfully,  and  instructed  her  children  and  youth 
more  diligently,  so  rich  and  blessed  a  harvest 
would  she  have  reaped  from  the  seed  sown  and 


19.  ITS  RELATION  TO  STATE  AND  CHURCH.  351 


labor  bestowed,  that  she  would  regard  the  charge 
of  sectarianism  as  idle  wind.  Coming  from  her  own 
members,  she  would  consider  it  either  as  a  mark 
of  ignorance,  or  as  an  indication  of  unsoundness 
in  the  faith;  and  coming  from  others  she  would 
despise  it  as  a  senseless  accusation.” 

These  remarks  we  take  from  a  Report  to  the 
General  Assembly  on  Parochial  Schools ,  by  Dr.  J.  J. 
Janeway,  submitted  in  1840.  You  may  consider 
Presbyterianism  only  another  word  for  sectarian¬ 
ism,  to  the  mind  and  conscience  of  its  advocate  it 
is  not,  it  is  the  true  and  pure  religion;  and  upon  it 
as  such  he  bases  his  preference  for  parochial  schools 
over  the  secular — to  him  therefore  it  is  a  matter  of 
conscience.  Surely,  the  argument  that  a  sense  of 
religious  duty  demands  the  education  of  the  youth 
in  religious  schools,  can  not  be  met  by  a  charge 
upon  him  who  advances  it  of  sectarian  bias  and 
bigotry.  Least  of  all  can  a  citizen — and  it  is  as 
such  we  are  endeavoring  “to  hear  the  case” — be 
allowed  to  offer  in  replication  anything  so  im¬ 
pertinent. 

In  the  above,  the  plaintiff  is  a  Presbyterian. 
For  Presbyterian,  substitute  the  name  of  any  other 
denominational  designation — Episcopalian,  Luther¬ 
an,  Methodist,  Baptist,  even  Roman  Catholic,  etc., 
— and  you  have  their  common  formal  declaration 
against  the  secular,  and  their  demand  for  parochial 
schools.  For  in  all  churches  of  a  decided  char¬ 
acter  there  are — though  in  some  more  by  far  than 
in  others — those  who  cannot  do  otherwise  than 
look  upon  the  common  secular  school  rather  as  a 
make-shift  than  as  the  normal  condition  of  affairs 


352 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


educational.  They  hold  that  the  S3rstem,  without 
being  intended  to  do  so,  nevertheless  crowds  re¬ 
ligion  into  the  background;  and  that  for  this  rea¬ 
son,  as  one,  it  cannot  serve,  as  they  should  be 
served,  the  best  interests  of  the  individual,  of 
society,  of  the  Church  and  of  the  State;  and  that 
these  convictions  move  them  to  desire  and  to  con¬ 
tend  for  something  better  and  more  efficient.  We 
cannot  but  honor  the  sentiment.  Besides  all  this, 
“Many  devout  parents  are  by  no  means  content  to 
pay  to  the  tax  collector  the  salaries  of  infidel  pro¬ 
fessors  and  principals,  whose  influence  upon  the 
country  they  believe  to  be  altogether  pernicious. 
Indeed,  many  are  not  content  to  pay  for  the  sup¬ 
port  of  teachers  whose  lips  are  padlocked  as  to 
every  Gospel  truth,  even  though  they  may  be  mor¬ 
ally  and  professedly  Christians.”  (Dr.  Kimball  in 
the  Congregationalist  of  1883..) 

The  force  of  the  argument,  as  thus  presented, 
is  felt  by  many;  and  to  meet  it  they  propose 
among  other  expedients  the  introduction  of  some 
religion — -just  enough  to  remove  the  stigma  of  god¬ 
lessness  which,  in  the  minds  of  some,  is  attached  to 
non-religious  schools.  In  this  way  they  hope  to  re¬ 
move  the  compunctious  objection  of  some  and  to 
comply  with  the  demands  of  others,  and  thus  satis¬ 
factorily  to  compromise  the  wThole  matter  in  dis¬ 
pute.  Without  at  all  entering  upon  a  discussion  of 
its  legalty  under  a  government  wThich  disavows 
having  anything  to  do  with  religion  as  such,  and 
w^hich  is  founded  upon  the  principle  of  equal  rights 
and  liberties  to  all  in  all  things  and  in  religion 
especially — without  here  engaging  fully  to  show  up 


19.  ITS  RELATION  TO  STATE  AND  CHURCH.  353 


its  utter  impracticability  and  which  we  mean  to  do 
in  the  following  section — suffice  it  to  say  that  the 
proposition,  if  carried  out,  will  only  make  matters 
worse.  The  introduction  of  a  little  religion  even, 
considering  the  social,  the  legal,  the  religious  and 
churchly  embarrassments  under  which,  if  not  in 
despite  of  them,  it  would  needs  have  to  be  done, 
would  be  but  a  miserable  pretext — and  a  pretext  of 
religion  is  really  worse  than  none  at  all.  And  sup¬ 
pose  that  a  few  of  the  so-called  fundamental  doc¬ 
trines,  and  such  as  it  is  supposed  all  religionists 
hold  in  common,  were  taught;  this  might  gratify, 
as  no  doubt  it  would  more  than  satisfy,  the  deist, 
the  Socinian,  the  rationalist,  the  Unitarian  and  oth¬ 
ers,  but  it  would  not  satisfy  the  Christian.  To  him, 
Socinianism,  rationalism,  and  all  isms  of  a  similar 
import,  are  of  all  forms  of  sectarianism  the  very 
worst.  And  not  without  good  reason.  For  if  there 
be  any  doctrine  unscriptural,  and  therefore  unchris¬ 
tian  and  sectarian,  it  is  that  which  teaches  men  to 
be  virtuous  and  to  do  good  as  best  they  can, 
thereby  to  secure  success  in  life  and  an  entrance  to 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Yet  this  is  “  the  broad 
Christianity  ”  and  “  the  common  religion  55  which 
some  would  have  taught  in  the  secular  schools  in 
order  to  make  these  acceptable  to  the  consciences 
of  Christians ! 

Than  the  absence  of  religion  and  their  indirect 
hindering  of  its  propagation,  there  are  objections  to 
secular  schools  of  a  more  positive  and  serious  na¬ 
ture.  These  are  not  inherent  in  the  system,  but 
from  outside  causes  attach  themselves  to  its  opera¬ 
tion.  While  the  schools  in  themselves  are  not  god¬ 
less,  godless  teachers  and  superintendents  —  and 
15* 


354 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


that  in  not  a  few  instances — will  possess  them¬ 
selves  of  their  management.  Under  the  laws  of 
the  land  in  general  and  of  the  schools  in  particu¬ 
lar,  how,  for  example,  can  an  avowed  atheist  be  de¬ 
barred  from  a  seat  in  the  school-board,  or  from  any 
office  in  the  school,  if  otherwise  qualified?  You 
answer  that  you  know  of  none,  but  at  the  same  time 
inquire :  what  of  that,  since  no  one  is  permitted  to 
teach  otherwise — that  if  any  one  holds  to  atheistic 
views,  in  the  school-room  he  is  bound  to  keep  them 
to  himself.  True,  and  yet  not  altogether  true.  He 
may  say  nothing  against  our  holy  religion,  and  yet 
again  in  a  thousand  subtle  ways  disparage  it  in  the 
hearts  of  our  children.  “  What  is  education?  It 
is  that  which  is  imbibed  from  the  moral  atmosphere 
which  a  child  breathes.  It  is  the  involuntary  and 
unconscious  language  of  its  parents  and  of  all  those 
by  whom  it  is  surrounded,  and  not  their  set  speeches 
and  set  lectures.”*  Now  with  many,  as  it  should 
be  with  all,  fathers  and  mothers,  the  education  of 
their  children  is  very  much  a  matter  of  conscience, 
and  of  an  enlightened  conscience,  too.  This  being 
the  case,  suppose  the  other,  that  if  parents  would 
at  all  send  their  children  to  school  it  must  be  to  an 
atheist — what  are  they  to  do?  And  yet  it  is  a 
lamentable  fact  that  where  the  system  of  education 
itself  is  based  upon  strictly  secular  grounds,  there 
not  a  few  of  the  schools  fall  into  the  hands  of  athe¬ 
ists  or  of  men  whose  moral  influence  is  not  a  whit 
less  corrupting.  Under  such  circumstances,  una¬ 
voidable  as  they  are,  is  it  to.be  wondered  at  that 
there  are  many  found  who  look  with  disfavor  upon 


*  Drummond’s  Speeches  in  Parliament. 


19.  ITS  RELATION  TO  STATE  AND  CHURCH.  355 


the  whole  system  and  refuse  it  their  hearty  support? 
Besides,  the  same  objection  holds  in  a  greater  or 
less  degree  with  regard  to  the  books  in  use  now  and 
then. 

In  an  address  on  the  duties  of  teachers  and 
parents,  Dr.  M’Guffy  very  wisely  exhorts  :  “  Let  us 

be  careful  never  to  inculcate  any  doubtful  principle 
of  morality  or  religion  ” — we  add,  on  any  subject 
whatever — ;  “or  to  recommend,  by  precept  or  ex¬ 
ample,  any  wrong,  or  even  equivocal  sentiment  of 
feeling.  We  may — nay,  we  must — have  our  own 
speculative  opinions  ....  But  in  this  state,  fellow 
teachers,  let  them  never  be  named  in  our  schools, 
nor  let  them  begin  to  influence  our  conduct  as  prac¬ 
tical  teachers.  The  intellectual  and  moral  char¬ 
acters  of  our  pupils  is  too  valuable  to  be  made  the 
subject  of  rash  and  hazardous  experiment.”  The 
giving  out  of  doubts  as  facts,  certainly  in  itself 
already  a  wrong,  acts  most  ruinously  upon  the 
moral  powers  of  the  credulous  and  confiding  youth. 
Its  inevitable  result  is  skepticism  in  every  domain 
of  thought,  and  hence  distrust  of  men  and  dis¬ 
belief  of  God.  Notwithstanding  this,  in  our  schools 
and  in  the  books  there  in  use,  the  wildest  specula¬ 
tions  are  made  to  pass  for  the  most  creditable  theo¬ 
ries,  while  theories  are  palmed  off  as  demonstrated 
facts.  That  is,  to-day;  on  the  morrow  the  whole  or¬ 
der  may  be  reversed  :  the  fact  becomes  a  theory,  this 
same  theory  a  hypothesis,  and  this  same  hypothesis 
an — exploded  idea!  This  whole  miserable  way  of 
things  may  astound  the  school,  exalt  the  teacher, 
enrich  the  book-maker,  please  the  world  and  “meet 
the  times,”  but  it  is  an  abomination  irreparably  in¬ 
jurious  to  the  mind  and  soul  of  the  rising  generation. 


356 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


While  such  grievous  things  are  said  in  dispar¬ 
agement  to  the  secular  -school,  it  must  not  be  in¬ 
ferred  that  there  is  no  good  in  it,  or  that  nothing 
can  be  said  in  its  favor.  By  no  means!  “ Destroy 
it  not,  for  there  is  a  blessing  in  it.”  The  mental 
discipline,  the  useful  knowledge,  the  artistic  skill, 
the  elegance  of  manners,  the  habits  of  orderliness 
and  neatness,  of  observation  and  industrious  appli¬ 
cation,  which  it  may,  and  in  so  great  a  measure 
does,  secure  to  those  attending  it — all  these  things 
are  invaluable  treasures  to  the  individual,  and  of 
great  worth  to  the  Church  as  well  as  to  the  State. 
Its  systematically  non-religious  character  and  mode 
and  method  of  operation  do,  in  themselves,  not 
condemn  it.  These  its  features  are  a  defect  rather, 
and  a  necessary  evil;  but  they  do  not  render  it  a 
thing  unholy  and  hateful  in  the  sight  of  God — no 
more  than  is  a  system  of  civil  government  partak¬ 
ing  of  the  same  nature  thereby  rendered  unholy. 
To  stigmatize  secular  schools  as  godless  for  no  other 
reason  than  that  they  teach  no  religion,  is  a  sense¬ 
less  and  wrongful  denunciation. 

Then,  too,  when  the  secular  school  is  at  the 
same  time  public,  that  is,  the  property  of  the  gov¬ 
ernment,  it  must  be  said  in  its  favor  that  the 
diffusion  of  knowledge — such  as  it  provides — will  be 
more  general,  school-houses  will  be  more  numerous 
and  better  adapted  to  the  purpose,  and  the  school¬ 
room  better  furnished,  than  when  the  matter  of 
education  is  wholly  left  to  the  care  of  society,  in¬ 
cluding  the  churches.  It  is  to  be  feared  that,  were 
a  government  to  provide  no  school-facilities,  schools 
as  a  rule  would  only  be  found  where  there  are 


§  19.  ITS  RELATION  TO  STATE  AND  CHURCH.  357 


churches,  and  even  not  always  there.  The  result 
would  be  that,  in  place  of  the  school-master,  ignor¬ 
ance  would  be  abroad  and  together  with  vice  bear 
impious  sway  in  many  a  nook  and  corner  of  the 
land.  We  repeat  it;  “ Destroy  it  not,  for  there  is 
a  blessing  in  it” — even  in  the  secular  school. 

On  the  other  hand,  even  when  we  must  admit 
that  in  some  respects  the  State  can  outdo  the 
Church,  it  can  do  so  only  in  things  of  a  secondary 
importance,  only  in  externals,  while  in  things 
most  vital  to  education  it  can  do  nothing  at  all. 
Place  your  child  into  the  hands  of  the  State  and 
the  very  best  that  can  be  done  for  it — not  to  say 
what  really  will  be  done — is :  mental  training,  the 
infusion  of  knowledge  respecting  earthly  things, 
and  the  formation  of  good  external  habits — its 
heart  it  can  not  regenerate  nor  sanctify,  its  char¬ 
acter  it  can  not  really  mold  unto  goodness,  because 
to  do  this  it  would  have  to  teach  the  word  of  God, 
which  it  dare  not  do.  In  a  few  words :  it  can  give 
to  your  child  a  good  secular  education — no  more ; 
and  it  may  do  much  less.  The  parochial  school, 
the  churchly  school,  fully  educates.  Its  object  and 
office  are  to  furnish  simultaneously  a  secular  and 
religious  education  combined,  so  that  the  latter 
part  may  sanctify  the  former — that  with  the  power 
of  knowledge  the  will  rightly  to  use  it  may  grow 
up  together.  In  this  it  may,  in  this  it  does,  not 
always  succeed;  but  with  the  means  and  with  the 
charge  to  do  this,  the  Church  and  the  Church  ex¬ 
pressly  is  commissioned. 

“  Then  the  king  answered  and  said,  Giye  her  the  living 
child,  and  in  no  wise  slay  it:  she  is  the  mother  thereof.” 


358 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI* 


§  20.  THE  PROBLEM  BROUGHT  HOME,  OR,  THE 

AMERICAN  SCHOOL. 

“  In  the  United  States,  the  several  States  in¬ 
dividually  arrange  the  school-system  and  designate 
the  various  schools  to  be  supported  and  managed 
by  the  public  authorities,  and  sometimes  prescribe 
more  or  less  of  the  branches  of  knowledge  to  be 
taught;  provide  how  districts  may  be  created,  di¬ 
vided,  or  consolidated  with  others  and  how  moneys 
may  be  raised  by  or  for  them ;  prescribe  their  or¬ 
ganization,  officers  and  the  powers,  and  their  time 
and  manner  of  their  filling  and  vacating  offices 
and  the  functions  of  each  office;  prescribe  the 
school-age  and  conditions  of  attendance;  and  pro¬ 
vide  in  some  cases  for  the  investment  and  applica¬ 
tion  of  the  school-funds  derived  from  the  General 
Government.  The  local  municipalities  organize 
school-districts  under  State-laws,  elect  school-offi¬ 
cers,  and  levy  and  collect  taxes  for  school-purposes. 
The  local  school-officers  examine,  appoint,  and  fix 
the  salaries  of  teachers,  when  not  otherwise  done, 
build  school-houses,  procure  school  supplies,  ar¬ 
range  courses  of  study,  prescribe  the  rules  and 
regulations  for  the  government  of  the  schools  and 

administer  the  schools.”  See  UA  Statement  of  the 

% 

Theory  of  Education  in  the  United  States  of  Amer¬ 
ica,  As  approved  by  many  leading  Educators. 
Gov.  Printing  Office,  1874.” 

In  the  same  document  we  find  the  following 
statement,  p.  18:  Sectarian  instruction  is  not 


20. 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOOL. 


359 


given  in  the  public  schools.  Religious,  particu¬ 
larly  sectarian,  training  is  accomplished  mainly  in 
families  and  by  the  several  denominations  in  their 
Sunday-schools  or  in  special  classes  that  recite 
their  catechisms  at  stated  intervals  during  the 
week.  It  is  quite  a  common  practice  to  open  or 
close  the  public  schools  with  Bible-reading  and 
prayer.  Singing  of  religious  hymns  by  the  entire 
school  is  more  common.” 

Though  in  some  of  the  State-Constitutions 
there  is  found  a  more  or  less  direct  recognition  of 
the  Deity,  yet,  upon  the  whole,  the  attitude  as¬ 
sumed  by  them  with  regard  to  religion  is  the  same 
as  that  of  the  National  Government.  Hence  the 
secularity  of  our  common  schools.  To  these,  as 
above  mentioned,  in  places  a  religious  coloring  is 
given,  notably  by  a  devotional  use  of  portions  of 
Scripture,  and  incidentally  by  the  use  of  music  of 
which  the  text  is  religious.  While  for  some  this  is 
not  enough  of  religion,  for  others  it  is  too  much.  In 
the  first  place,  the  dangerously  secularizing  tend¬ 
ency  and  effects  of  the  whole  system  are  much  more 
strongly  and  generally  felt  than  many  seem  willing 
to  admit.  Many  are  conscious  of  the  fact  that  there 
is  something  wrong,  though  they  may  not  be  able 
to  say  just  what  it  is.  Not  a  few,  however,  among 
the  more  observing  understand  the  evil,  and  as 
frankly  point  it  out  as  they  are  correct  in  fixing 
it.  Here  a  noteworthy,  yes,  and  a  praiseworthy 
example: — 

“The  schoolmaster  who  is  abroad  in  our  land, 
is  not  the  people’s  schoolmaster  in  spirit  and  in 
truth,  unless  he  teach  them  what  is  indispensable 


360 


THE  SCHOOL* 


VI. 


to  their  prosperity,  happiness  and  true  glory.  He 
must  be  the  Christian ,  the  American  school-master:  he 
must  give  them  a  truly  Christian  and  American  educa¬ 
tion,  to  make  them  what  they  should  be,  peculiarly  a 
Christian  and  American  people.  Are  these  the  great 
end  and  practical  operation  of  the  scheme  of  Edu¬ 
cation  now  established  in  our  country?  ...  Is  this 
important  end  obtained?  I  shall  endeavor  to  show 
that  it  is  not,  and  why  it  is  not:  and  likewise  in 
what  manner  only,  in  my  judgment  at  least,  it  can 
be  attained. 

“May  I  be  pardoned,  If  I  turn  aside  for  a  few 
moments,  to  disburden  myself  of  a  thought,  which 
finds  here  its  appropriate  place.  I  condemn  to  a 
vast  extent,  all  our  existing  schemes.  I  think 
them  radically  defective  in  elements  and  modes. 
In  one  who  has  spent  the  last  twenty-five  years  at 
the  bar,  and  has  never  had  any  practical  knowledge 
as  a  teacher,  except  in  the  instruction  of  his  chil¬ 
dren,  it  may  be  deemed  presumptuous  to  set  up  his 
speculations,  against  the  experience  which  founded 
and  administers  a  practical  system.  I  am  willing 
to  bear  the  reproach  of  presumption,  if  it  only  be 
admitted  that  I  have  no  selfish  purpose  to  answer, 
no  false  pride  to  gratify;  that  I  honestly  believe  I 
am  engaged  in  the  discharge  of  an  unwelcome  but 
important  duty,  and  that  the  progress  and  honor 
of  religion,  the  happiness  and  improvement  of  our 
country,  are  my  objects  .  .  . 

“The  spirit  of  the  Revolution  gave  to  the 
government  of  the  old  confederacy  a  life  and  spirit, 
which  were  not  its  own :  and  the  immediate  influ¬ 
ence  of  English  institutions,  habits,  sentiments, 


20. 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOOL. 


361 


and  instructors,  gave  to  our  system  of  education  an 
efficacy  which  did  not  belong  to  it.  The  country 
needed  a  political  reformation :  and  the  people  de¬ 
manded  a  new  constitution.  It  is  just  the  same 
now;  I  believe  the  country  requires  a  reform  in 
the  scheme  of  instruction;  and  if  the  people  have 
not  yet  demanded  a  new  constitution  in  education ,  it 
is  because  they  are  not  yet  aware  of  the  deficiencies 
in  their  old  articles  of  confederacy ,  in  the  educational 
department  .... 

“I  proceed  to  designate  what  I  regard  as  the 
prominent  objectionable  features  of  our  existing 
systems  of  instruction.  They  are  not  as  they 
should  be,  decidedly  religious .  It  will  be  granted, 
for  no  one  can  doubt,  much  less  deny,  that  religion 
is  no  part  of  our  plans  of  daily  education.  The 
Scriptures,  as  a  branch  of  education,  are  no  where 
uniformly  and  steadily  taught,  as  languages  and 
mathematics  are.  If  the  Bible  be  used  as  a  school¬ 
reading  book,  or  a  few  verses  be  committed  to  mem¬ 
ory,  still  it  is  not  made  the  subject  of  daily  instruc¬ 
tion.  I  speak  of  the  fact,  that  the  religion  of  the 
Bible  is  not  a  permanent,  substantial  part  of  edu¬ 
cation  among  us.  I  am  aware  that  the  Bible  has 
in  some  few  instances  forced  its  way  into  a  school 
or  college;  but  to  so  limited  an  extent,  as  to  make 
no  change  in  the  general  character  of  the  system. 
That  system  is  then  undoubtedly  an  unchristian, 
even  if  it  be  not  an  aniichristian  scheme  .... 

“  Things  as  they  should  be,  demand  then,  im¬ 
peratively,  that  education  should  be  decidedly  re¬ 
ligious.  It  is  granted  on  all  hands,  that  religion  is 
the  highest  interest  of  man ;  that  it  is  the  cement 
16 


362 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


of  society  and  the  foundation  of  government;  that 
it  is  the  best  safeguard  of  duty,  and  a  fountain  of 
the  purest  happiness.  It  is  also  granted  that  noth¬ 
ing  can  supply  its  place,  that  arts  and  sciences, 
learning  and  eloquence,  genius  and  taste  are  of  lit¬ 
tle  value  without  it.  Equally  is  it  granted,  that 
the  great  majority  who  come  out  of  our  schools, 
and  colleges,  learn  nothing  in  them  of  this  momen¬ 
tous  concern.  Can  this  be  right  any  where?  How 
much  more  is  it  wrong  then  in  a  country  where  the 
people,  being  and  doing  every  thing,  are  uncon¬ 
trolled,  but  by  the  voluntary  restraints  they  lay 
upon  themselves  ...  It  is  granted  by  every  intel¬ 
ligent  man,  that  religion  is  the  chief  safeguard  of 
American  institutions;  that  none  but  a  religious 
people  can  remain  free ;  .  .  .  and  yet,  though  all 
this  be  granted,  the  Christian  religion,  emphatic¬ 
ally  the  religion  of  the  people,  is  not  made  a  part 
of  the  scheme  of  general  education.  I  can  not  but 
regard  this  as  a  great  calamity  to  the  country;  and 
it  becomes  well  the  people  of  the  United  States,  to 
consider  wThether  they  are  not  guilty  of  a  striking 
dereliction  of  duty  to  their  posterity,  by  thus  ex¬ 
cluding  religion  from  their  daily  course  of  instruc¬ 
tion.  Let  the  school-master  who  is  abroad  in  our 
land,  answer  then  the  question,  is  he  a  Christian 
school-master?” 

Such  was  the  view  of  “one  of  the  best  classical 
scholars  in  the  country,”  a  graduate  of  Yale,  an 
eminent  lawyer,  a  warm  friend  of  the  school,  and  of 
one  great  in  the  love  of  his  country  and  in  the  fear 
of  God:  Thomas  Smith  Grimke — died  in  1834.  We 
have  quoted  at  great  length,  still  not  enough  to  re- 


20. 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOOL. 


363 


tain  fully  unimpaired  the  force  of  his  plea  for 
christianizing  the  public  school.  Most  truly  does 
he  point  out  to  us  the  one  thing  needful,  most  fer¬ 
vently  does  he  urge  its  election,  but  the  manner  of 
its  obtaining  he  does  not  show.  Being  a  lawyer,  it 
is  all  the  more  surprising  that  he  makes  no  men¬ 
tion  of  the  insurmountable  difficulties  in  the  way 
— or  does  the  force  of  habit,  perhaps,  account  for 
that?  He  argues,  and  most  truly  again,  “that  none 
but  a  religious  people  can  remain  free.”  Does  he 
propose  by  legislation  to  christianize  the  public 
school?  If  not  in  that  way,  how  otherwise?  And 
if,  were  not  that  robbing  the  people  of  the  very 
thing  he  proposes  to  secure  to  them — freedom? 
The  fact  is,  the  measure  proposed  and  so  warmly 
urged,  is  discussed  on  the  supposition  that  all  the 
people  of  the  land,  individually  and  collectively, 
are  Christians  and  that  as  such  they  are  all  of  the 
same  way  of  thinking  and  believing.  That  the 
premises  thus  assumed  are  notoriously  fallacious: 
that  those  who  profess  Christianity  are  among 
themselves  divided  and  subdivided  into  innumer¬ 
able  factions,  that  there  are  thousands  who  deny 
the  Christian  faith  in  its  first  and  best  elements, 
that  there  are  thousands  of  others  who  renounce 
religion  ^in  all  its  forms,  then,  that  the  law  of  the 
land  takes  cognizance  of  this  lamentable  state  of 
things  and  on  account  of  it  all  the  more  effectually 
insists  upon  toleration — these  are  facts  which  re¬ 
ceive  no  consideration. 

We  say  that  Christianity  is  the  religion  of  our 
country,  rather,  of  the  people  inhabiting  the  land. 
This  is  a  fact  both  pleasing  and  significant.  But 


364 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


the  statement  will  not  bear  a  literal  interpretation; 
for  that  it  is  too  general.  All  we  mean  to  convey 
by  its  use  is,  that.upon  the  whole  our  people  are  a 
religious  people ;  and  then,  that  they  derive  their 
religious  convictions  not  from  the  Mishna  nor  the 
Koran,  not  from  the  Veda  nor  from  the  Lun-Yu  of 
Confucius,  but  from  the  Bible  and,  above  all,  from 
the  Gospel  of  Christ.  Nevertheless,  the  Christian¬ 
ity  thus  derived  is  not  so  universal  and  to  such  an 
extent  common  as  to  warrant  its  introduction  into 
the  common  schools,  and  thus  to  give  to  our  present 
system  of  education  a  positive  Christian  character. 
“The  most  perplexing  question  respecting  common 
schools'1 — says  John  G.  Baird  of  the  Conn.  Board  of 
Education — “relates  to  moral  and  religious  train¬ 
ing,  and  results  from  diversities  of  religious  opin¬ 
ions.  As  the  schools  are  supported  chiefly  by  taxes 
levied  upon  all  classes  indiscriminately,  no  one  sect 
can  be  favored  without  injustice  to  all  others.  But 
the  right  moral  training  of  a  child  is  even  more 
important  than  the  culture  of  its  intellect,  and 
common  schools  cannot  safely  omit  all  such  train¬ 
ing.  Nor  can  it  be  wisely  remitted  to  other  times 
and  places,  for  the  principles  of  honesty,  virtue, 
truthfulness,  and  morality  are  for  constant  daily 
use.  The  problem  is  to  give  such  instruction  as 
shall  be  efficient  for  its  purpose,  but  shall  not  vio¬ 
late  the  rights  or  excite  the  just  apprehensions  of 
any  sect.  If  this  can  be  accomplished,  the  amount 
of  such  training  may  be  too  small  to  give  general 
satisfaction  ....  The  difficulty  that  is  experienced 
in  common  schools  of  the  lower  rank  becomes  more 
urgent  when  higher  studies  are  to  be  pursued. 


20. 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOOL. 


365 


Both  teachers  and  text-books  in  such  studies  as 
history  and  philosophy  must  advance  positive  opin¬ 
ions,  some  of  which  will  inevitably  conflict  with 
those  of  a  part  of  the  people.  There  is  obvious  in¬ 
justice  in  compelling  people  to  pay  taxes  for  sup¬ 
porting  the  teachers  of  doctrines  which  they  abhor, 
and  in  thus  depriving  them,  wholly  or  in  part,  of 
the  means  for  establishing  such  schools  as  teach  the 
views  which  they  approve.  The  religious  question 
is  arising  in  all  countries  where  diverse  religions 
are  found,  and  it  is  sure  to  claim  increased  atten¬ 
tion  in  the  future.  It  does  not  admit  of  a  ready 
solution,  and  perhaps  no  single  solution  will  ever 
be  discovered.  It  may  assume  such  proportions  as 
to  limit  free  popular  education  to  a  lower  range  of 
studies  than  its  most  ardent  friends  have  hoped. 
Surely,  the  earnestly  religious  part  of  the  people, 
who  are  the  firmest  friends  of  schools  for  all,  can¬ 
not  consent  to  the  total  banishment  of  moral  train¬ 
ing  from  the  common  schools.  A  severe  struggle 
upon  this  point  is  one  of  the  possibilities  of  the 
near  future.” 

In  these  words  we  have  a  precise  and  fair 
statement  of  the  problem  in  its  special  reference 
to  our  own  land.  We  proceed  to  consider  the  gen¬ 
eral  situation  and  condition  of  things,  and  then  to 
discusss  the  methods  proposed  for  its  solution. 

Diversities  and  conflicts  in  matters  of  religion, 
no  less  than  infidelity,  are  the  work  of  sin;  and 
wherever  they  occur  they  are  felt  to  be  a  great 
curse  in  all  departments  of  life.  We  here  see  how 
they  affect  the  all-important  affair  of  education — 
how,  in  our  own  land  as  in  many  others,  they  ren- 


366 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


der  the  Common  Christian  School  a  thing  utterly 
impossible.  This,  many  of  our  people  as  yet  do 
not  believe;  or,  if  they  perceive  it,  they  at  least 
are  not  willing  to  acknowledge  it.  As  in  many 
other  instances,  so  in  this  case :  the  truth  is  too 
bitter  for  utterance.  What  is  practically  impos¬ 
sible,  some  are  nevertheless  bound  to  realize,  at 
least  to  some  extent.  They  persistently  demand, 
some:  that  our  public  schools  shall  be  religious; 
others,  that  they  be  made  decidedly  Christian — 
the  former  want  portions  of  the  Bible  read,  the 
latter  insist  that  it  shall  be  taught.  Note  well  the 
distinction  between  “ religious”  and  “decidedly 
Christian.” 

Foremost  in  the  defense  of  the  Public  School 
as  a  religious  but  not  as  a  Christian  institution, 
there  is  a  class  of  men  which  deserves  to  be  char¬ 
acterized  somewhat.  To  them  all  “ sectarianism” 
is  an  abomination  as  great  as  is  atheism  itself  and, 
than  this,  entitled  to  no  more  consideration,  if  to 
as  much.  “For  religion” — they  say — “is  no  sect, 
no  book,  no  interloper  in  human  affairs.  Religion 
is  older  than  Protestant  or  Catholic,  than  Christian 
or  Hebrew,  than  Mohammedan  or  Pagan  faith. 
The  Bible  and  all  special  forms  and  creeds  are  but 
its  children.”  With  this  conception  of  religion 
they  would  bid  you  “Go  about  your  own  busi¬ 
ness;  the  common  schools  are  neither  sectarian 
nor  atheistic,  but  they  are,  and  shall  be  relig¬ 
ious.”  God  preserve  our  schools  against  the  intro¬ 
duction  of  that  “religion”  which  is  here  set  forth 
as  the  meretricious  dame  of  “the  Bible  and  all 
special  forms  and  creeds”  as  her  children!  In  the 


§20. 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOOL. 


.  367 


entire  domain  of  religious  thought,  can  there  be 
found  anything  so  pointedly  and  narrowly  sec¬ 
tarian  as  the  “ religion”  here  advocated  and,  at  the 
same  time,  predicated  of  our  common  schools  as  a 
matter  of  right  ?  The  sophistic  and  specious  asser¬ 
tion  that  within  this  creed  is  embodied  only  what 
of  truth  is  common  to  all  the  creeds  of  the  world, 
can  not  save  it  from  condemnation  for  the  double 
reason  that  it  admits  no  distinctive  truth  into  its 
own  shallow  system  and  that  it  is  set  up  against 
every  other  form  of  faith.  Of  all  sectarianism  this 
is,,  perhaps,  the  most  exclusive  and  repugnant ; 
but,  as  in  every  other  case,  to  its  advocates  it  is 
“the  only  true  and  rightful  religion.” 

It  might  seem  unfair  to  specify  in  these  pages 
any  one  class  of  religionists  and  to  expose  to  view 
its  creed — “that  weak  decoction  of  religion  called 
Unitarianism” — ;  and  unfair  it  would  be,  had  we 
no  good  reason  for  so  doing.  Many  of  our  citizens 
have  demanded  that  the  public  school  be  made 
non-religious;  not  one,  to  our  knowledge,  has  ever 
put  forth  the  claim  that  it  be  made  atheistic,  that 
is,  that  atheism  be  taught.  Never  have  we  heard 
a  Methodist  say  that  Methodism  should  there  be 
inculcated;  never  has  the  Presbyterian,  the  Bap¬ 
tist,  the  Episcopalian,  the  Lutheran,  put  forth 
such  arrogant  claims  upon  the  schools  of  the 
people,  each  in  behalf  of  his  own  particular  creed. 
No,  even  the  Romish  Church,  inimically  and  bit¬ 
terly  disposed  toward  them  as  she  is,  grievously  as 
she  has  abused  and,  in  places,  defrauded  them — as 
yet  she  has  not  had  the  insolence  to  say  that  the 
public  schools  are  her  schools  and  that  her  dogmas 


3S8 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


must  there  be  taught.  Of  such  affront  to  our  equal 
rights  and  to  common  equity,  only  the  modern  Deist 
is  thus  far  guilty.  “Go  about  your  own  business ” — 
he  says  to  us  all — “the  common  schools  are  neither 
sectarian  nor  atheistic,  but  they  are,  and  shall  be, 
religious.  They  shall  teach  that  religion  which 
was  before  the  Bible  and,  if  need  be,  can  do  with¬ 
out  it.  Divest  the  creeds  of  your  churches  of 
every  distinctive  feature,  and  whatever  is  left, — 
to  wit ;  my  religion  and  creed, — give  to  the  youth 
of  the  land  ;  let  that  be  the  creed  of  the  Public 
School.  Against  that,  nobody  can  have  any  rea¬ 
sonable  objections;  with  that  all  can,  all  must,  be 
satisfied.  Damit  basta!”  And  lo,  the  most  per¬ 
plexing  question  of  the  age,  how  readily,  how  self- 
satisfactorily,  answered.  It  leaves  our  schools  in 
happy  possession  of  an  indefinable  First  Great 
Cause,  and  of  the  escape-valve  policy  that,  where¬ 
as  probably  there  is  a  heaven  and  possibly  a  hell, 
it  is  best  in  the  ordering  of  one’s  life  to  have  some 
respect  to  that  First  Great  Cause.  “  Having  children 
before  you,  you  may,  after  the  manner  of  old  faiths, 
call  that  great  Unknown,  “God;”  but  be  sure  to 
say  nothing  about  that  old  absurdity  of  a  “Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  All  things  considered,  you 
may  use  the  Bible;  but  be  careful  in  your  selec¬ 
tions.  Beside  its  many  excellent  qualities  there 
are,  you  know — !  The  beatitudes  are  fine;  so  is  ‘Our 
Father’  an  unobjectionable  form  of  prayer  .  .  . 
This  miserable  pretense  of  a  more  miserable  relig¬ 
ion  is  not  only  ingeniously  offered  us  in  solution  of 
the  vexed  problem  under  consideration — alas,  it 
has  thus  far  been  the  solution  actually  accepted 


20. 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOOL. 


369 


and  put  into  operation.  The  “ religion”  just  de¬ 
scribed  is  in  reality  to  a  great  extent  the  religion 
of  our  Public  School.  Happily,  its  disastrous  effects 
have  thus  far  been  counteracted  in  great  measure 
by  the  Christian  influence  of  some  of  its  teachers, 
but  especially  by  the  Christian  family  and  the 
Christian  churches. 

Unless  arrested  in  good  time  this,  the  worst  of 
all  forms  of  sectarianism,  and  which  now  practically 
constitutes  the  creed  of  our  common  schools,  will 
inevitably  work  our  religious,  and  with  it  our  na¬ 
tional,  ruin.  Of  this,  many  of  our  good  citizens 
are  already  aware ;  and  many  more  are  fast  learn¬ 
ing.  Unfortunately,  of  these  not  a  few,  as  already 
observed,  propose  measures  of  correction  in  a  way 
wholly  impracticable.  Like  Grimke,  they  would 
make  the  common  schools  truly  and  thoroughly 
religious,  that  is,  Christian.  A  more  effective  and 
better  means  of  relief,  certainly,  can  not  be  sug¬ 
gested.  The  teaching  of  the  Word  of  God,  in  fact, 
is  our  only  help  and  safety.  But  its  salvation  can¬ 
not  come  to  us  by  way  of  the  school  common  to  all 
the  people  of  the  land.  That  is  wholly  out  of  the 
question. 

It  is  true  that  the  atheist,  who  derides  the  very 
idea  of  God  and  cries  out  in  contempt  of  godliness 
in  all  its  forms,  is  wickedly  guilty;  and  nothing 
much  better  can  be  said  of  the  moralizing  infidel. 
Likewise  is  he  greatly  in  the  wrong  who  holds  and 
propagates  false  doctrines.  All  such  doings  are  for¬ 
bidden  by  God,  and  He  will  judge  them  in  due 
time.  But  it  is  no  less  true  that,  in  affairs  strictly 
religious,  He  would  allow  no  resort  to  coercion  and 


370 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


violence  by  any  man  against  his  fellow.  This  is 
recognized,  though  not  in  this  form,  throughout 
our  whole  theory  of  Government.  As  in  other 
things,  so  especially  in  affairs  of  the  soul  and  of 
God,  our  Government  is  founded  on  the  principle 
of  equal  rights  and  liberties  to  all.  Now  we  must 
make  up  our  minds  either  to  depart  from  the  posi¬ 
tion  thus  assumed  or  to  abandon  every  thought  of 
establishing  Christianity  as  an  integral  part  of  our 
public  system  of  instruction.  As  things  are  :  full 
religious  freedom  and  schools  both  Christian  and 
public,  are  two  things  we  cannot  possibly  enjoy  at 
the  same  time.  Either  we  must  surrender  the  one 
or  do  without  the  other. 

The  laws  of  our  land — the  laws  which  our 
fathers  made — forbid  the  establishment  of  any  re¬ 
ligion,  forbid  its  compulsory  support  by  taxation 
and  otherwise,  forbid  a  legally  enforced  attendance 
upon  worship,  and  religious  restraint,  by  the  mag¬ 
istrate,  of  every  kind  whatsoever.  In  their  close 
distinction  between  things  civil  and  religious;  in 
their  legal  separation  of  the  State  and  Church ;  in 
their  declaration  of  equal  rights  and  liberties ;  and  in 
their  proclamation  of  freedom  then  and  for  ever  ; — 
have  our  fathers  been  over-wise  and  over-generous, 
have  they  been  extremists?  Would  we  at  this  day, 
when  history  has  demonstrated  that  they  thought 
wisely  and  did  well,  begin  to  doubt  their  wisdom 
and  deplore  their  work  ?  Are  we  prepared  to  undo 
and  to  amend  what  we  know  to  have  been  well 
done — prepared  to  break  the  promises  for  us  made 
and  to  demand  a  return  of  the  gifts,  to  us  as  well  as 
for  us,  bestowed ?  No!  Yet  these  things  we  must 
do  would  we  Christianize  the  Public  School. 


20. 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOOL. 


371 


The  Public  School  is  the  property  exclusively 
of  the  State.  But  it  is  granted  on  all  sides  that  the 
propagation  of  religion  is  the  office  of  the  family 
and  the  Church,  that  it  does  not  come  within  State- 
jurisdiction  except  as  a  matter  wherein  individual 
citizens  and  the  Church  are  entitled  to  protection. 
Introduce  religion  as  an  object  of  instruction,  and 
the  State  is  made  to  transcend  the  limits  of  its  vo¬ 
cation;  it  encroaches  upon  the  rights  of  individ¬ 
uals,  of  the  family  and  the  Church,  for  it  is  the 
State  which  administers  the  schools  of  which  we 
speak.  In  short,  every  argument  against  the  estab¬ 
lishment  of  any  religion  by  the  Government  is  an 
argument  also  against  the  introduction  of  religion 
into  the  public  educational  system.  Between  the 
two  there  is  virtually  no  difference.  In  the  one  we 
have  a  national  church  including  church-schools; 
in  the  other  we  have  a  national  church-school  sub¬ 
serving  all  the  purposes  of  some  non-established 
sect.  The  talk  about  teaching  a  religion  of  which 
no  one  shall  be  able  to  define  the  substance  and 
tell  the  name,  is  nothing  but  a  blind  and  a  subter¬ 
fuge  of  deists  in  disguise — of  men  who  are  bent 
upon  reducing  all  religions  to  the  low  level  of  their 
own  and  who,  to  accomplish  their  purpose,  would 
employ  as  the  most  effective  instrument  the  schools 
of  the  people.  “  Probably  at  the  time  of  the  adop¬ 
tion  of  the  Constitution  and  of  the  Amendments  to 
it  ...  an  attempt  to  level  all  religions,  and  to 
make  it  a  matter  of  State-policy  to  hold  all  in  utter 
indifference,  would  have  created  universal  disap¬ 
probation,  if  not  universal  indignation.”  The  time 
to  level  all  religions  without  exciting  universal  dis- 


372 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


approbation  if  not  universal  indignation — that 
time,  thank  God,  has  not  yet  come ;  and,  we  hope, 
least  of  all  in  our  own  beloved  country. 

Than  the  rationalistic  and  flatulent  deism  of 
our  times,  no  more  cau  Christianity  occupy  a  legit- 
mate  place  in  the  course  of  public-school  instruc¬ 
tion.  Though  no  doctrine  of  Christianity,  and 
were  it  the  least  and  the  least  believed,  is,  properly 
speaking,  sectarian ;  nevertheless,  its  every  truth 
is  more  or  less  distinctive  so  that  Christians  are,  as 
such,  religiously  separated  from  all  other  people. 
The  idea  of  a  Christianity  so  broad  that  it  can  be 
approved  by  both  Jew  and  Gentile,  may  be  a  whim 
of  somebody’s  brain  but  it  is  no  thing  of  reality. 
The  inculcation  in  our  public  schools  of  Christian 
doctrines,  which  are  such  in  truth,  is  subversive  of 
the  object  for  which  they  were  established,  namely, 
to  be  secular  schools  and  adapted  to  the  secular 
wants  of  the  whole  people.  Let  the  Christian  re¬ 
ligion  be  taught,  and  the  foes  and  the  friends  of 
Christianity  will  withdraw  their  support;  each 
party  for  a  reason  its  own. 

No,  the  Bible — precious  as  it  is  and,  for  one 
reason,  just  because  it  is  so  precious — can  find  no 
place  as  a  text-book  in  the  Public  School.  Neither 
the  infidel  and  the  atheist,  nor  the  true  and  intel¬ 
ligent  Christian,  want  it  there  :  the  former  because 
they  hate  it,  the  latter  because  they  love  it,  and 
wisely  love  their  children.  The  former,  in  their 
wicked  folly,  do  not  want  it  taught  their  children; 
the  latter  will  have  it  taught,  but  only  by  teachers 
of  their  own  election,  at  least  only  by  such  as  they 
can  approve.  You  say:  “  What  need  we  care 


20. 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOOL. 


373 


about  the  wishes  of  infidels,  atheists,  and  secta¬ 
rians  ?”  If  you  do  not,  happily  the  people  gen¬ 
erally,  the  law,  and  the  Government,  do  concern 
themselves  about  their  wishes.  ’Tis  well  that  they 
do.  Were  they  to  order  the  schools,  which  are 
equally  the  property  of  all,  in  deference  to  the 
wishes  of  some  and  in  defiance  to  the  will — not  to 
say  the  consciences — of  others,  then  might  we  have 
a  large  land  to  live  in  but  its  liberties  would  be 
small,  The  Christian  religion  is  the  best  and  the 
only  true  safeguard  of  our  country  and  its  noble 
institutions ;  at  the  same  time,  no  sooner  is  it  forced 
upon  the  common  school  for  propagation  than  re¬ 
ligious  freedom  and  civic  equity,  peace  and  order, 
are  made  to  quit  the  land.  In  so  far  as  you  com¬ 
mit  the  cause  of  religion  to  the  School  of  the  State, 
in  that  measure  you  make  it  the  concern  of  the 
State  itself,  and  you  dispossess  the  Church  of  its 
rightful  charge.  And  such  a  course  is  altogether 
repugnant  to  our  idea  of  common  rights  and  civil 
government.  The  Convention  by  whom  our  Con¬ 
stitution  was  formed,  says  Chief  Justice  Jay,  “  were 
of  the  opinion  that  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  like  the 
ark  of  God,  would  not  fall,  though  unsupported  by 
the  arm  of  flesh ;  and  happy  would  it  be  for  man¬ 
kind  if  that  opinion  prevailed  more  generally.” 
Even  so;  then  leave  religion  to  the  care  of  the 
Church;  and  as  citizens  of  a  free  country  remem¬ 
ber  that,  according  to  Iiavard, 

“The  greatest  glory  of  a  free-born  people 

“Is  to  transmit  that  freedom  to  their  children.” 

Moreover,  wThere  there  is  such  a  great  diversity  of 
religious  convictions,  as  is  the  case  among  our  peo- 


374 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


pie,  the  promulgation  of  any  religious  doctrine  is 
sure  to  involve  an  unjust  restraint.  The  School 
depends  for  its  support  upon  general  taxation. 
But  to  compel  a  man  to  pay  for  instruction  in 
religion,  such  as  he  cannot  approve,  is  an  infraction 
of  his  liberty  of  conscience,  and  therefore  unlawful. 
We  know  that  this  is  a  convenient  plea,  and  liable 
to  abuse.  We  likewise  are  of  the  opinion  that 
many  wTho  resort  to  this  mode  of  defense  by  so  do¬ 
ing  only  render  themselves  ridiculous.  Such  are, 
for  example,  the  atheists  and  all  people  of  low 
character.  Such  are  also,  it  would  seem  to  us,  in 
this  particular  instance,  the  extreme  Romanists ; 
for  since  the  Romish  Church,  wherever  it  has  the 
power,  shows  no  regard  whatever  for  the  religious 
and  conscientious  convictions  of  others,  but  op¬ 
presses  them  without  a  sign  of  compunction,  he 
who  approves  thereof  forfeits  the  benefit  of  the 
principle — of  the  principle  that  the  consciences  of 
men  must  be  respected.  Be  this  as  it  may,  there  are 
many  honorable  men  whose  consciences  will  not 
allow  them  without  remorse  to  contribute  to  the 
dissemination  of  any  religion  which  they  hold  to 
be  false  and  pernicious  to  all  the  interests  of  hu¬ 
manity.  That  possibly  they  are  mistaken,  that  in 
the  opinion  of  many  others  what  they  think  to  be 
false  and  hurtful,  is  true  and  wholesome,  does  not 
alter  the  case.  Every  just  law’  requires  that  they 
be  left  free  to  follow  their  moral  convictions.  The 
Christian  protests  against  an  enforced  support  of 
Judaism,  the  Jew  against  a  like  support  of  Chris¬ 
tianity ;  the  Protestant  emphatically  objects  to 
each  and  every  compulsory  contribution  towards 


20. 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOOL. 


375 


promulgating  Romanism,  while  the  Romanist  con¬ 
siders  it  an  insult  to  be  asked  to  do  anything  for 
Protestanism;  etc.  Would  our  Government  keep 
the  peace,  to  do  which  it  is  called,  it  must  in  no 
way  whatever  levy  taxes  for  purposes  avowedly 
religious.  Would  a  commonwealth  possess  and  ad¬ 
minister  the  School,  that  School  should  be  rigidly 
secular  and  not  engage  to  do  the  work  committed 
to  the  Church. 

The  idea  of  a  school,  intended  to  impart  re¬ 
ligious  instruction  and  at  the  same  time  to  be  the 
common  property  of  all  sorts  of  people,  is  in  itself 
something  preposterous  in  the  extreme.  If,  as  al¬ 
ready  pointed  out,  conscientious  parents  cannot 
always  avail  themselves  of  schools  designedly  sec¬ 
ular  on  account  of  the  teachers  and  books  at  times 
employed  and  on  account  of  the  influence  there 
exerted,  how  much  more  must  this  be  the  case  in 
schools  where  moral  and  religious  instruction  is 
made  an  object.  This  a  few  simple  and  pointed 
questions  will  show.  How  can  the  atheist  and  the 
believer,  the  Jew  and  the  Christian,  the  Romanist 
and  the  Protestant,  ever  agree  to  intrust  their 
children  to  the  same  religious  instructor?  how 
can  they  possibly  find  religious  text-books  to  which 
no  one  can  have  any  objection?  Will  the  atheist, 
the  Jew,  the  Romish,  ever  submit  to  have  the 
Bible  expounded  to  their  children  by  Protestant 
Christians?  Can  these  accept  of  such  a  service  at 
the  hands  of  the  former?  To  all  of  these,  and  simi¬ 
lar,  questions,  all  will  cry  out  in  the  negative,  and 
that  most  vehemently,  too.  Yet,  as  people  are  in 
this  country,  to  such  things,  atrocious  as  they  are 


376 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


in  part,  we  would  have  to  submit  were  the  Public 
Schools  made  decidedly  religious. 

No,  if  we  desire  to  have  State-schools,  these 
must  be  secular.  Such,  upon  the  whole,  they  are ; 
and  systematically  such  they  are  designed  to  be. 
But  again,  the  fact  is  recognized  and  is  beginning 
to  be  felt  more  and  more  among  our  Christian 
people  “  that  high  mental  attainments  afford  no 
adequate  security  against  moral  debasement/7  and 
that  the  education  by  the  present  public  system  is 
not  at  all  such  as  the  temporal  and  spiritual  wel¬ 
fare  of  the  child  demands,  even  when  supplemented 
by  domestic  and  churchly  efforts.  What  is  pro¬ 
posed  to  remedy  the  evil,  and  the  utter  impracti¬ 
cability  of  every  proposition  so  made,  we  have  seen. 
We  inquire,  what  is  actually  being  done? 

There  are  some  families  who  quietly  attend  to 
the  education  of  their  children  personally,  or  com¬ 
mit  them  to  the  care  of  private  schools.  Then,  as 
is  well  known,  the  Romish  sect  interdicts  the  atten¬ 
tion  of  the  Public  School  by  the  children  of  its  own 
connection.  It  provides  for  them  by  schools  of  its 
own  establishment.  Whatever  our  opinion  may  be 
of  their  merits,  and  of  the  merits  of  the  Romish  creed 
and  policy  generally,  as  viewed  from  a  religious 
standpoint ;  as  citizens  we  must  acknowledge 
that  Romanists  have  a  full  right  to  their  opinions 
and  to  the  establishment  of  such  schools  as  they 
may  deem  best  suited  to  themselves  and  to  the 
wants  of  their  children.  Since  they  cannot  avail 
themselves,  as  they  say,  of  the  schools  of  the  public, 
the  most  honorable  course  they  can  pursue  is 
the  one  adopted  by  them,  i.  e.  their  system  of 


20. 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOOL. 


377 


parochial  schools.  But  we  consider  as  dishonor¬ 
able  the  measures  here  and  there  employed  to  dis¬ 
able  and  destroy,  it  would  seem,  the  schools  of  the 
people ;  and  expressly  must  we  condemn  their  con¬ 
tinued  endeavors  to  possess  themselves  of  a  share 
of  the  public  school-funds.  In  these  they  have  suc¬ 
ceeded,  notably  in  New  York  City,  and  are  most 
likely  to  succeed  wherever  politically  they  hold 
the  balance  of  power.  In  some  of  our  States  the 
application  of  the  people’s  money  for  sectarian 
purposes  is  constitutionally  forbidden,  as  by  right 
it  should  be  everywhere.  We  as  Protestants  ob¬ 
ject  to  taxation  for  religious  purposes  of  whatever 
kind,  and  most  of  all  to  any  Romish  propaganda  as 
by  our  means. 

Besides  the  Romanists,  there  are  others  who 
have  established  parochial  schools;  nominally  the 
Lutherans,  and  to  some  extent  also  those  belong- 
to  the  Calvinistic  branch  of  Protestantism.  But 
these  people  seem  to  be  bound  not  only  to  have 
their  own  schools  but,  as  is  right  and  proper,  to 
support  them  by  means  their  own.  This  is  as  it 
should  be ;  for  the  State  has  the  full  right  to  es¬ 
tablish  secular  schools,  however  and  whenever  it 
may  think  best  to  do  so.  But  this  involves  the 
other,  namely,  to  levy  a  tax  for  their  maintenance. 
Then,  when  we  remember  that  a  secular  education, 
even  where  it  is  imperfect  in  many  respects,  is  a 
thousand  times  better  than  none  at  all — when  we 
think  of  the  social  and  political,  yes,  and  the  indi¬ 
rect  churchly,  benefits  derived  from  the  education 
as  now  furnished  by  the  Public  School — what  citi¬ 
zen  were  not  willing  to  assist  in  its  support,  even 
16* 


378 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


when  for  his  own  children  he  provides  something 
far  better  ? 

There  are  some,  especially  among  those  who 
prize  higher  the  State  than  the  Church,  who  have  an 
unreasonable  prejudice  to  parochial  or,  as  they  call 
them  indiscriminately,  sectarian  schools.  They  pre¬ 
judge  them  as  necessarily  engendering  and  strength¬ 
ening  a  factious  spirit,  and  that  for  this  reason  they 
are  politically  injurious — that  they  are  apt  to  drive 
out  the  spirit  of  true  patriotism.  We  own  that 
there  is  some  truth  in  the  first  part  of  this  state¬ 
ment,  this  namely,  that  they  do  stand  in  the  way  of 
those  who  fondly  desire  to  see  all  existing  religions 
reduced  to  some  common  level — to  that,  for  exam¬ 
ple,  which  these  people  themselves  occupy.  But 
there  is  no  truth  in  the  charge  that  church-schools 
tend  to  destroy  one’s  love  of  home  and  country. 
No,  they  foster  that  love ;  they  purify  and  strengthen 
the  patriotic  sentiment.  America  has  been  desig¬ 
nated  “the  land  of  sects.”  Truly,  here  the  sects 
abound  and  thrive,  if  anywhere;  yet,  than  are  the 
Americans,  where  is  there  a  people  in  all  the  world 
more  patriotic — a  people  greater  in  the  love  of  their 
country  and  more  brave  in  its  defense  ?  No,  widely 
as  our  people  differ  religiously,  and  firm  as  they  are 
in  their  religious  convictions — in  the  love  of  their 
country  they  are  one  and  they  are  strong  and 
brave.  Consulting  the  good  of  our  country  no  less 
than  the  advancement  of  God’s  kingdom  among 
us,  we  say  with  the  lamented  Grimke  that  the 
schools  and  teachers  of  our  children  must  be  such 
as  “  to  make  them  what  they  should  be,  peculiarly 
a  Christian  and  American  people .”  And  whereas,  un- 


379 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOOL. 


der  existing  circumstances,  the  State  can  possibly 
give  us  neither  such  schools  nor  such  teachers  as  we 
both  need  and  demand,  we  say:  let  no  one  discour¬ 
age  those  who  do — the  people  of  the  Church.  Time 
will  show  that  not  the  schools  of  the  several  States, 
the  American  and  secular  schools,  but  that  the 
schools  of  the  several  churches,  the  American  and 
Christian  schools,  are  in  the  end  by  far  the  greater 
preservative  forces  and  benefactors  in  a  nation. 

In  the  meantime,  as  long  as  the  great  ma¬ 
jority  of  our  citizens  think  it  best  to  continue  the 
present  public  system  of  instruction,  it  behooves 
every  one  readily  to  submit  to  the  necessary 
taxation.  And  though  he  may  know  of  a  better 
system  and  in  a  good  spirit  and  legitimate  way 
labor  for  its  introduction,  he  must  not  overlook  the 
great  importance  of  the  public  schools  to  the  land 
in  which  he  lives;  nor  forget  that  he  likewise  is  a 
partaker  of  all  those  benefits  which  accrue  from  the 
education  of  the  masses  under  State  supervision. 

They  who  think  that  a  different  and  better 
education  is  due  to  their  childrQn  than  the  one  so 
provided — an  education  which  conforms  more  to 
the  will  of  God  and  answers  more  fully  the  true 
interests  of  humanity — must  content  themselves  to 
devise  means  and  to  establish  schools  of  their  own, 
as  many  Christians  of  the  land  have  done  and  are 
now  doing.  But  while  so  doing  they  should  first 
make  up  their  minds  from  their  own  resources  to 
pay  for  and  support  such  schools.  There  must  be 
no  covert  attempt  or  other  to  obtain  possession  of 
the  public  money — that  must  be,  as  collected,  so 
also  used  for  secular  purposes  only. 


380 


THE  SCHOOL. 


VI. 


Towards  a  satisfactory  solution  of  the  vexed 
question  before  us,  the  following  general  proposi¬ 
tions  are  thought  serviceable: 

1)  Let  the  State  demand  that  all  the  children 
of  the  land  be  educated  in  a  manner  and  degree  as 
required  by  the  public  safety  and  good;  that  is, 
let  secular  education  be  made  compulsory. 

2)  Let  the  churches  likewise  require  their 
members  to  have  their  children  instructed  as  re¬ 
quired  by  the  will  and  word  of  God;  that  is,  let 
religious  instruction  be  insisted  on  more  earnestly 
and  be  made  more  thorough  in  the  home,  the 
Church,  and  in  the  Church-school. 

3)  Let  both,  the  State  and  the  Church,  pro¬ 
vide  for  adequate  educational  facilities — the  schools 
of  the  State  not  to  furnish  more  than  a  common 
political  education,  as  defined  in  §  4  p.  78. 

4)  Before  the  law  of  the  land  let  each  one  be 
free  to  send  his  children  to  the  schools  of  the  State 
or  of  the  Church,  as  he  may  think  best. 

5)  Let  every  one,  who  can,  be  held  to  pay  for 
the  education  of  his  children. 

6)  Let  the  State,  and  the  churches  who  will? 
make  proper  provision  for  the  education  of  the 
poor  and  friendless. 

These  general  propositions  are  in  full  accord 
with  our  American  theory  of  the  relation  of  State 
and  Church.  They  are  no  more  revolutionary  to 
the  present  condition  of  things  than  anything  thus 
far  advanced,  such  as  the  division  of  the  school- 


20. 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOOL. 


381 


funds,  exemption  from  taxation  of  those  who  can¬ 
not  avail  themselves  of  the  schools  as  they  are  and 
are  conducted,  etc. 

But  whatever  change  be  proposed  or  whatever 
movement  inaugurated,  in  each  and  all,  let  mutual 
good-will,  moderation,  and  equity,  be  the  ruling 
graces;  and  let  the  true  good  of  the  land  to  the 
glory  of  God,  be  the  purpose  of  every  heart. 


. 


